The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be attending an official engagement in Nottinghamshire on Friday 23 April when the House will sit? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Parkinson's Disease

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they are planning to mark Parkinson's Awareness Week; and what plans they have over the next year to help those suffering from Parkinson's disease and their families, friends and carers who support them.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we welcome Parkinson's Awareness Week. The Government strongly support the Parkinson's Disease Society for the work it is doing in helping patients, particularly in the development of Parkinson's disease nursing posts.
	We are developing a national service framework for long-term conditions that will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions, including Parkinson's disease. The Government are investing an additional £40 million in stem cell research in 2004–06, which offers enormous potential, introducing new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will the Government fund the 50 additional specialist nurses in Parkinson's disease to ensure that the 25,000 sufferers currently deprived of such services are so provided? Secondly, will the Government assess and provide the services required for carers, one in four of whom are over the age of 75 and often experience difficult health problems?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are currently 183 specialist Parkinson's disease nurses in the UK and I pay tribute to the work that the Parkinson's Disease Society has done in helping to produce that number. We take seriously the need to expand the number, but I cannot give a categoric assurance to my noble friend today.
	The Government have provided a strong increase in the carer's grant. We are now providing more than 2 million breaks a year for more than 143,000 carers as a result of that grant. My honourable friend Stephen Ladyman will be producing a new carers' performance indicator, which will show how local services are doing.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is not one specialist consultant or nurse in the whole of North Yorkshire for people suffering from Parkinson's disease? Is he also aware that the monitoring and provision of specialised drugs is very important for the condition?

Lord Warner: My Lords, on the latter point, I agree that the monitoring of specialised drugs for this condition is critical. Due to the individual circumstances of each sufferer, it is important that we get the drug regimes right.
	I will look into the issue of North Yorkshire and write to the noble Baroness. However, I would reassure her that the number of consultants in neurology who look after patients with this condition has increased by almost 50 per cent since this Government came to office.

Lord Addington: My Lords, although I am pleased to hear about the increase in the number of neurologists, do the Government accept that by international terms it is low? When can we expect to achieve an increase in the number of neurologists who will be able to make an early diagnosis, thus giving the correct drug therapy a chance to slow down the rate of the disease? Has a study been carried out on the cost-effectiveness of that action, which would result in a reduction in the amount of care required and possibly keep people in work longer?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are now more than 400 consultant neurologists, as compared with 47 per cent fewer in 1997. Although we could do with more, we are on a strong upward trend.
	As I said in my Answer, we are producing a national service framework, which will produce a stronger set of proposals around the best way of developing services for people with this condition.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, do the Government support the Bill which has just been debated in the House of Commons and will soon be coming here?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have to take custody of that question and write to my noble friend.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I welcome the new developments in the care of patients with Parkinson's disease and the increase in the consultant establishment. However, does the Minister agree that the massive developments in treatment which have been introduced into the care of people with this disease during the past few years might have been made much more difficult had it not been possible to examine in detail brain samples many years ago in order to discover the missing chemicals responsible for the symptoms of the condition? That examination might have been made much more difficult if the Human Tissue Bill in its present form had been implemented by Parliament?
	Does the Minister also agree that, happily, many new forms of treatment are being introduced as a result of massive research in molecular genetics and in the chemical changes that occur in the brain of someone with Parkinson's disease?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to emphasise the importance of research in this area, and that is why I mentioned it in my Answer. The Government are investing an extra £40 million in stem cell research over a two-year period. I believe that ours is the first country in the world to set up a national stem cell bank, which will help researchers in this area.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of the stem cell research will be carried out on adult stem cell material and how much on foetal material?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the allocation of that money is in the hands of organisations such as the Medical Research Council. I shall look into the detail and write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, is the Minister able to inform the House whether discussions have taken place with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools about the education of medical undergraduates across the UK in neurology, given the importance of accurate diagnosis and the need to differentiate Parkinson's disease from the Parkinsonian symptoms that occur as drug side-effects associated with other diseases?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me a rather technical question. I shall look into it with my usual assiduousness and reply to her.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, does the Minister feel able to answer the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant regarding the possible dangers to future research contained in the present Human Tissue Bill?

Lord Warner: My Lords, that was an oversight on my part. I, together with my honourable friend Rosie Winterton, met a large number of interests representing medical research to discuss the Human Tissue Bill. We are considering very carefully their representations and the points that they made, and I am cautiously optimistic about our ability to respond to those concerns.

Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister say what progress has been made in informing and advising NHS trusts of the desirability of enabling Parkinson's sufferers to self-medicate while they are in hospital?

Lord Warner: My Lords, a whole area of patient choice relates to our ability to give people more control over their medication, consistent with their condition. We do not have a specific answer to that question, but I shall find out whether more advice has been given on the issue and write to the noble Earl.

Bus Priority Measures

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to help the bus industry, in relation to both traffic flow and cost increases.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Traffic Management Bill will improve traffic management and reduce congestion. This, and the implementation of bus priority measures, will make buses more reliable and cut journey times, reducing operating costs. The 2003 local transport settlement involved a £1.9 billion funding package, much of which will be spent on bus-related and traffic management schemes. Bus service operators grant rose from £222 million in 1998–99 to £341 million in 2003–04, helping to meet cost pressures on the industry.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply. As well as the various measures to ease congestion that he described, does he have any definite news for the House on whether other cities are likely to follow the example of London and introduce congestion charging or, indeed, whether they are likely to follow my own authority in Oxford in introducing traffic regulation orders to free up the city centre so that traffic with the highest priority may use it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a number of authorities are looking at successful examples of innovation. They include Oxford, which plays a part with regard to its buses, and Cambridge, although these issues are not restricted to the university towns. The noble Lord is right that it behoves local authorities and transport executives to look closely at current developments which are increasing bus usage in certain cities to a marked extent. Of course, we would like to see that extended.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, bearing in mind that road congestion seriously delays buses, can my noble friend say what the Government can do to encourage local authorities to free up some roads and introduce more radical solutions in relation to buses? What can they do with regard to local authorities such as Barnett, which seem to be removing bus lanes to give more space for cars? Does that not go against the Government's transport policy?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, local authorities are responsible to their own electorates for the decisions that they take. However, I think that my noble friend will recognise that a number of local authorities—we have already cited one or two—have adopted imaginative schemes to tackle congestion and to improve, in particular, bus passage. We all recognise that buses are an extremely economic form of transport in our cities and towns. That is why we want to see an increase in the level of bus usage.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on bus lane enforcement with cameras outside London? Over the past three years, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has received Written Answers suggesting that this will happen "shortly", "soon" and "imminently". Does the Minister have another adverb today?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, part of the reason for those reservations in the replies at this stage is that the Traffic Management Bill is still before this House. The noble Baroness will recognise that the purpose of the Traffic Management Bill is to improve usage of the highway and to encourage local authorities to adopt exactly the strategies which she advocated; namely, enforcement of road space for priority users. Buses must use bus lanes properly and other road users must stay out of them.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the introduction of the new, long, low, single-storey, continental-style bus has improved or unimproved traffic flow? While he is at it, could he give us any assurances as to the future of our beloved double-decker?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, our double-decker is safe and beloved and will stay even safer if the bendy buses' propensity to burst into flames continues at the recent level. The noble Lord will recognise that many of us cannot see some devious plot in that by Europe; nor do we think that there should be a referendum on the issue.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, while putting to one side the comment famously attributed to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that anyone over 30 who travels by bus is a failure, does my noble friend agree that it is worth looking at the suggestion contained in the Select Committee report in the other place that there need to be many more bus quality contracts? Also, is there not a case for at least some experiments in local authority regulation of bus services, as it seems to work in London?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we want to see an increase in bus quality contracts because there is no doubt that local authorities and the bus companies can reach intelligent decisions on the deployment of buses. In fact, my right honourable friend the Minister, Tony McNulty, who chairs a committee which includes local authority representatives and bus operators, is expressly concerned to develop these concepts in the way that my noble friend advocates.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister therefore considering whether to amend the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated buses, and introduce a franchise system as exists in London? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that, unlike his Government, a bendy bus cannot do a U-turn?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we do not propose to amend the 1985 Act in quite the way that the noble Viscount suggests. But, of course, even he will recognise that the passage of two decades would lead modern forward-looking governments to look to new measures beyond what that measure provided. I have indicated to the House today that we have a Bill before your Lordships' House—the Traffic Management Bill—which will certainly improve road usage and the priority allocated to buses.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while traffic management measures may well encourage greater use of buses, one of the big problems with bus use is that many people feel insecure, particularly late at night and with the operation of one-man, or one-woman, driver-only buses? Does he think that a more general return of conductors might help in the use of buses and the security of people using them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has highlighted an important point. Passengers on buses need to feel secure, particularly late at night. But of course there is a real problem about the introduction of conductors to buses. An important aspect of bus costs at the present time is drivers' wages. The addition of conductors would render a number of services somewhat uneconomic. The answer probably lies, therefore, in the development of closed-circuit television, which is being applied to vast numbers of buses—that is so particularly in London—and in prompt communications between the bus driver having trouble and the local police.

Asylum Seekers: Applications

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people claiming to be asylum seekers have arrived in the United Kingdom since 31 March 2003; how many of these have been granted asylum; how many have had asylum refused; and how many cases remain to be decided.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, from 1 April to 31 December 2003—the latest period for which figures are available—there were 33,370 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom. We do not have data on the outcome of applications made in that period, but 43,480 asylum decisions were made during that time. Of these, 2,360 decisions—that is, 5 per cent—granted asylum. Around four-fifths of new applications now receive an initial decision within two months.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that no doubt accurate and surprisingly full reply. Is it not vital that the invasion of asylum seekers should be thoroughly controlled, as some may be terrorists and a good many are simply illegal immigrants whom we do not need and do not want to have?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not see this as an invasion of asylum-seeking terrorists and we do have very good control of the numbers. Your Lordships will know that we have halved the number of applications for asylum. In October 2002, 8,770 people applied for asylum; in December 2003, the figure was 3,535. In total, there were 49,370 applications for asylum in 2003. That is 41 per cent fewer than in 2002. With all the measures that we have put in place, we have this issue very firmly under control.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister give the backlog figure for appeals over the same period? Does she share my concern that the Home Office appears to be increasingly using the tactic of refusing people in the first instance and then leaving the substantive decision to the appeal stage? For some countries the number of successful appeals is in the 40 per cent region, which indicates that the quality of decision-making in the first instance is not good and that the backlog has simply been shifted to the appeal tribunal.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not agree with that analysis. A record number of appeals—81,725—were determined by adjudicators in 2003. That is more than one-quarter—27 per cent—higher than in 2002, when the figure was 64,405. The proportion of appeals dismissed rose to 78 per cent in 2003 from 76 per cent in 2002, while the proportion of appeals allowed fell to a figure of 20 per cent from 22 per cent in 2002. So, we are removing record numbers of failed asylum seekers, together with dealing with the appeals very expeditiously. I do think that adjudicators and the courts dealing with the matter need to be congratulated on the real improvements that they have made in this regard.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is any record kept or research done as to the fate of those people whose applications are refused and who find themselves, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, back in the countries from which they came? Does the Minister agree that being clear about the quality of decision-making means, among other things, being clear about what happens when we say no?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. It is necessary to make sure that the quality decisions we make are correct and robust. I reiterate: the Government are totally committed to maintaining provision of proper help and support to those who are entitled to asylum.
	I do not have the relevant information in relation to what happens once the applicant goes back to his country of origin or another place. I shall write to the right reverend Prelate in relation to that matter.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, further to that point, when asylum has been refused, what normally happens to applicants who are already in the United Kingdom? Is physical force resorted to, or do most of them simply disappear in this country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the applicants do not disappear. Your Lordships will know that we have sought to put in place a humane and appropriate system whereby notification is given to applicants so that they can voluntarily make arrangements with the appropriate authorities for their return. If they participate in those arrangements, removals take place in a way that we hope meets the needs of applicants and the authorities. We find that those arrangements work far better than they have in the past. The number of people removed in proper situations and circumstances has increased significantly, as I have already indicated.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, while recognising the need for a firm response to and management of asylum, does the noble Baroness recognise the concern of the 19 year-old woman to whom I spoke last night and her 63 year-old father about returning to Kosovo when 28 people were recently killed in ethnic conflict; when they know that they cannot return to their home or to their village because it is now Serbian occupied; and when there is a shortage of mental health services, of which she is presently making use? Does the Minister recognise the need to approach the matter sensitively, especially when families with young children are involved, and to be careful in how we proceed?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course we realise that there are worries about these issues and that sensitivity is necessary. I can tell noble Lords that factors relating to returns are carefully considered and the most humane and appropriate measures put in place to ensure that returns can be facilitated in a proper manner.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clear up the confusion over government policy on returns of asylum seekers to Iraq that arose during the weekend? The Home Office seemed to give two different answers to the BBC and the Observer about its original intent to begin returns to Iraq by the end of April this year. Can she enlighten the House about what is now the policy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say openly to the noble Baroness that I did not know that there was any difficulty regarding the message about Iraq. I shall certainly write to her to clarify that point.

Identity Cards

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce compulsory identity cards as a matter of urgency.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are committed to the introduction of an identity card scheme as soon as is practically possible. The Cabinet agreed in November last year that legislation would be brought forward to build a base for a compulsory scheme. The Government will publish a draft Bill and consultation paper.

Lord Vinson: My Lords—

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, perhaps there should be a compulsory card to wait.
	I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is very helpful. But how long will we have to wait? Does she not accept that it is vital that we move as fast as possible—at the very least to introduce identity cards to help our security services in their vital efforts to root out and deal with dangerous terrorist elements in the United Kingdom? Why are we waiting when already 10 European countries provide such cards? Belgium, Germany, Greece and Spain make them compulsory. We already have compulsory cards for driving and for travelling abroad. What is the delay? Why is it happening and when will we see results?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that there is no undue delay. As I said in my Answer, the Government have made their commitment clear about identity cards. We hope shortly to be able to publish a draft Bill, where the matter will be clearly set out. The timing of my noble friend's Question is helpful but, he may find, unfortunate in terms of the answer that I can give him today.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, forgive my earlier impulsiveness. Does the Minister agree that this is a bit of a Morton's fork? If it is made compulsory to carry the new identity card at all times, millions of absent-minded and forgetful citizens will be criminalised. If, on the other hand, it is not compulsory to carry the identity card, it is difficult to see what benefits it will bring.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may disabuse the noble Lord on the first issue. It will not be compulsory to carry the card. Noble Lords will know that it is proposed that there should be a two-stage system, one stage of which would involve the creation of a register. Although we believe that people will want to carry their identity card with them for the purposes of ordinary, everyday conduct of business—in the same way that we currently use driving licences as proof of identity—we do not think that the system will be undermined if people are not made compulsorily to carry the card. We think that the system that we propose will work well.

Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that 60 or so years ago, British prisoners of war with only the most rudimentary tools at their disposal managed to forge identity documents that successfully fooled the Gestapo?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am so aware, and I see in his place the noble Lord who could perhaps give us some graphic examples of that. However, we are seeking to change the nature of those identity cards, because biometric data, by their very nature, are difficult if not impossible to replicate.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an Answer in another place from Beverley Hughes MP to my honourable friend Mark Oaten MP states that 23 civil servants, three full-time secondees and six external part-time consultants are currently engaged in the identity card programme? What is the cost of that large workforce working on a project which, I believe, does not have majority Cabinet support and certainly does not have overall political support?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may disabuse the noble Baroness on her last point, because it has total Cabinet support. I have said unequivocally that the Government are committed to the introduction of a compulsory scheme. I am sure the noble Baroness will well remember that that was made plain last November.
	I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise figures for the cost. The Government are learning from past experience of large IT projects. The Office of Government Commerce completed its gateway review in January 2004 and assessed the programme as ready. Your Lordships will know that for a number of reasons it is difficult for me to give the figures today.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is more than 10 years since I started asking a similar question? Do the police now accept that a compulsory card is necessary, when 10 years ago and since they did not like the idea of a compulsory card, only a voluntary one?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no indication that the police are anything other than supportive of this venture. Noble Lords in this arena have heard much that has been said by ACPO about terrorism and the need to identify those who seek to take advantage of our current system. It may well be that time and experience have changed a number of people's minds on the issue.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it the case, as has been reported, that every holder of the card will have to pay £70? If they refuse to pay £70, will they go to prison? Is some arrangement to be made for those who cannot easily afford £70? If so what will it cost?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I straightaway reassure the noble Baroness that the figure to be charged for the card has not yet been determined. Noble Lords will know from our debate on the matter late last year that the whole scheme will take place in two tranches. The first tranche will be the introduction of biometric data both for passports and driving licences. In accordance with the normal way, there will be an assessment of how much that will cost. There will then be a second stage when we roll out the compulsory scheme, when Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the issues in great detail. Some have described the procedure that has been specifically adopted for that as a super-affirmative procedure. At that stage, we will know more precisely how much the cards are likely to cost. We also made clear that provision will be made for those who are disadvantaged financially.

Iraq: Coalition Provisional Authority

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether British influence over the Coalition Provisional Authority is commensurate with the United Kingdom's contribution to the security and reconstruction of Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. Since the adoption of UNSCR 1483 on 22 May 2003, the working relationship has functioned well at a variety of levels: politically, militarily and technically. Of course, on occasion there are differences of emphasis and opinion but, in terms of security, the British military dominates in the Multinational Division (South-East) and, in terms of reconstruction, British companies are involved in contract awards worth more than 1.65 billion US dollars.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that noble Lords on these Benches are extremely concerned that the British Government should have proper influence over all levels of decisions taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority? We note, for example, as is now published in Washington, that, while at the talks President Bush was willing to accept the Prime Minister's request that the UN should have a "vital role" in the reconstruction of Iraq, the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him very firmly, we are informed, when he got back that he should no longer use that phrase.
	In 10 weeks' time the situation will change. We are also told in Washington that the Coalition Provisional Authority will become the US Embassy. Can we be reassured that the British Government will continue to have an active influence in the role of multinational forces after the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to remember that the provisional authority is a coalition. A coalition by its very nature has a variety of opinions, which are resolved through discussion and compromise. That is the case with the CPA. I remind the noble Lord that, so far as concerns internal relationships in the United States, the President of the United States is the President of the United States, not Miss Condoleezza Rice. What the President says is what we must rely on.
	After 1 July there will be two embassies: an American Embassy and a British Embassy. There will be a difference after 1 July. At the moment, the offices currently occupied by David Richmond and those occupied by Ambassador Bremer are linked by a private office and there is daily contact. After 1 July, there will be separate embassies—ours will be the biggest that we have in the Middle East—but mechanisms are being set up and there will be a great deal of interchange between the two offices in order to have oversight over what is going on after 1 July.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the relationship is as good as the Minister claims, why did Sir Jeremy Greenstock refuse the Prime Minister's urgent request to remain at least until the end of the CPA on 30 June? Could we exert whatever influence we possess to ensure that coalition forces adhere to the Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 57 of Protocol 1, which says that forces should refrain from any attack which,
	"may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life",
	disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated? Will the Government propose to our US allies that the international fact-finding mission established under Article 90 of Protocol 1 be invited to inquire into the alleged grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions being committed by coalition forces?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the whole question on the noble Lord's last point is what one deems disproportionate. In the past few weeks there have been attacks from terrorist elements resulting in great losses of civilian life. The important point in what the noble Lord quoted is the question of proportionality; it is always the important point. Of course our forces abide by the issues of proportionality under the Geneva Convention.
	The noble Lord asked whether the relationship was as good as claimed, when Sir Jeremy Greenstock was going before the handover period. Sir Jeremy Greenstock has been admirably generous in the time that he has given to the work that he has undertaken in Iraq. He was prevailed upon to come back from retirement to undertake that work, and I for one do not begrudge him a single moment of the time that he has now decided he wants to spend doing other things. I am delighted to say that in his successor, David Richmond, we have an enormously able diplomat. It is regrettable that others have cast some doubt on his seniority—the noble Lord did not do so. As the Minister directly responsible for that part of the world, I take the opportunity from this Dispatch Box of saying how delighted I am that we have somebody of Mr Richmond's ability undertaking the work at the moment.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, how do Her Majesty's Government plan to combat the decline in NGO and business involvement in Iraq, as staff are increasingly pulling out due to the increase in security problems and kidnapping?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the increase in security and kidnapping problems over the past weeks are now being addressed. Having looked at the overnight dispatches and those over the past couple of days or so, I am happy to be able to tell the noble Baroness that there is a quieter period at the moment. Nobody can guarantee how long that will be sustained, but current reporting indicates that there is a quieter period.
	The noble Baroness referred to a decline in NGOs and business. That is not the case. When I was in Iraq very recently, I spoke to a number of officials from NGOs, which are enjoying a good relationship with British and American aid agencies. In my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I made the point that we were gaining quite a number of contracts, whose current value is more than 1.65 billion US dollars. We have a number of others in the pipeline. I hope that the noble Baroness will also be pleased to know that we expect contracts and aid provision to increase in volume over the next couple of months or so.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, while the Minister is giving her customarily vigorous defence of the Government's position and the situation in Iraq, everyone in this House knows that the situation at the moment is extremely worrying. It is extremely difficult to get an accurate picture of the situation. I repeat the plea publicly that I have made to the Leader of the House privately: there must be a better system for the Government to keep people informed on the actual situation in Iraq. It is no good for the Prime Minister to stand up and say that everybody knows that things are going better generally in Iraq, and that the news reporting of the overall position is not accurate, if we have no way of establishing that overall position.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to my "customarily vigorous" report; I hope that it is also customary in its accuracy. It is difficult on occasions for a government to keep people informed when it is very hard for some parts of the media to want to pick up some of the better news coming out of Iraq. I have just come back from the United States of America. I was very struck to read on the front page of a United States journal a report about the way in which medical facilities were going to the Iraqi people and allowing those who had been injured to recover from facial or leg injuries, and a range of other points.
	I have never seen a report like that without comment in the British press. In my view—it is a personal view—it is regrettable that we get no such reports in the British press without a great deal of overlay of editorial comment. It was startling to see in the US press reporting without comment about some of the good things happening in Iraq. I hope that parts of our media and press will listen to what the noble Lord has said and perhaps recognise that they, too, have responsibilities in this matter.

Traffic Management Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Traffic Management Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 39,
	Schedule 1,
	Clause 40,
	Schedules 2 and 3,
	Clauses 41 to 50,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 51 to 61,
	Schedules 5 and 6,
	Clauses 62 to 70,
	Schedule 7,
	Clause 71,
	Schedule 8,
	Clauses 72 to 74,
	Schedule 9,
	Clauses 75 to 81,
	Schedule 10,
	Clauses 82 to 87,
	Schedule 11,
	Clauses 88 to 94,
	Schedule 12,
	Clauses 95 and 96.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the forthcoming negotiation over the new European treaty. In parallel, the Foreign Secretary is publishing today a White Paper on Europe.
	"On 1 May the EU will enlarge from 15 to 25 members. It will be the biggest ever increase in Europe's size. It will reunify Europe after the travails of communist dictatorship in eastern and central Europe. It is an historic event, one this British Government and the one before us have championed. Whatever the problems it poses, and we see that in the anxiety over prospective immigration, let us be in no doubt: the prospect of EU membership, together with the courage of the governments concerned, is the primary reason why those countries have been able to reform their economies and politics so radically and so beneficially. Such change has been in the interests of all of Europe. I say unhesitatingly that enlargement is right for Europe and for Britain and we should support it.
	"In addition, Bulgaria and Romania are set for membership in future years, taking the numbers to 27. Turkey is now making extraordinary strides forward in democracy, in human rights, in economic change, in the resolution of the conflict in Cyprus, strides that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, and all under the impulsion of future EU membership. So, within the space of a few years, Europe will be transformed. It will be easily the strongest political union and greatest economic market in the world. Britain should be at the heart of it. That is its right and its destiny.
	"Because of enlargement, Europe is sensibly seeking to change the way it works. In a Europe of 25 or 27 or 28, a rotating six-month presidency makes no sense; the use of the veto should be confined to the areas where it is truly necessary, otherwise decision-making becomes paralysed, and in certain areas, terrorism, security, economic reform, the environment, Europe must do more and do it better.
	"The new constitutional treaty is designed both to answer the challenge of enlargement and to bring together in one treaty what is presently found in two separate treaties. Indeed, a significant part of the new treaty is a repetition of articles already in force. I want to make clear in this negotiation that Britain will co-operate fully in helping Europe to work better; but work better as a Europe of sovereign nation states.
	"There are certain areas of policy where maintenance of control of our affairs is essential. In those areas, such as taxation, foreign policy, defence, social security, how the essentials of our common law criminal justice system work, treaty change, we believe that the national veto must remain. We will insist on the necessary amendments to the present draft treaty to ensure beyond doubt that they do. On this basis, the treaty does not and will not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member states and the EU.
	"The new treaty then would take effect, after ratification by all member states, probably in 2007, with certain key provisions in 2009. Until then, the key provisions of the Nice Treaty will remain in place. If the new treaty contains these essentials, we believe it is in Britain's interests to sign it. It will replace the six-month rotating presidency with a full-time chairman of the Council—a vital step away from federalism, enabling the Council, which is of course the repository of the individual governments, to become the body that sets Europe's agenda.
	"The new treaty for the first time will allow national parliaments the right to object to Commission proposals for legislation—a big advance in subsidiarity. It adds a greater ability to co-operate in areas such as terrorism and cross-border crime, which are crucial for the world in which we live. It gives a bigger role for enhanced co-operation between some of the member states, where not all of them wish to participate in certain areas.
	"That is what the treaty, if amended in the way that we seek, will actually do. Ever since its inception, however, the myths propagated about it have multiplied in those quarters, political and media, who we know are hostile not just to this treaty but to the whole notion of Britain playing a central role in Europe: that the EU will be renamed the United States of Europe. No, it will not. It is to remain the EU. That The Queen will be replaced as our head of state by an EU President of the Council. In fact, we already have a President of the Council and always have had. That Britain will be forced to join the euro, without a referendum and regardless of our economic tests being passed. No, it will not. The existing agreements on the single currency remain in the new treaty.
	"That Britain could not mount a future Falklands war or Iraq campaign without permission from Brussels. Yes, we could. Defence is to remain unanimous and the prerogative of the nation state. That we will lose our seat on the UN Security Council. No such provision exists. That Brussels will seize control of our oil supplies. No, it will not, and the treaty will make that clear. That Brussels will have the power to set taxes in Britain. Taxation is to remain with the nation state.
	"That our foreign policy will now be decided by the EU, because the new treaty obliges member states to support Europe's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. Actually, those words are taken from the Maastricht Treaty, and in any event CFSP is decided unanimously. That we will surrender control over our borders. It is already agreed that our right to control our borders will be specifically retained in the new treaty. That the assumption of innocent until proven guilty in British law will be scrapped. No such provision exists. All these, and many others, such as the hardy perennials about being forced to drive on the right, the Germans taking over our nuclear weapons, and no doubt the shape of our bananas too.
	"Even yesterday, we had the Leader of the Opposition asserting that if this treaty were in place, I would be unable, as British Prime Minister, to go to Washington to talk to President Bush. All of it is nonsense, myth, designed to distance people's understanding of what Europe is about and loosen this country's belief in its place in Europe. It has been an unrelenting, but I have to accept, partially at least, successful campaign to persuade Britain that Europe is a conspiracy aimed at us rather than a partnership designed for us and others to pursue our national interest properly in a modern, interdependent world. It is right to confront this campaign head on.
	"Provided the treaty embodies the essential British positions, we shall agree to it. Once agreed, either at the June Council, which is our preference, or subsequently, Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say. The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised in both Houses, and when Parliament has debated and decided. That was Michael Howard in 1997.
	"The question will be on the treaty, but the implications go far wider. It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making or not. It is time to decide whether our destiny lies as a leading partner and ally of Europe, or on its margins. Let the Euro-sceptics, whose true agenda we will expose, make their case. Let those of us who believe in Britain in Europe, not because we believe in Europe alone, but because, above all, we believe in Britain, make ours. Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I offer her congratulations—this afternoon, she is repeating not just one Statement, but two. The Statement that she has just repeated is an historic announcement. First, it gives the British people what we on this side have long said is their due—the right to decide in a free vote on any new EU constitution. We welcome that. The Prime Minister was utterly wrong to resist a referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I differ on many aspects of policy on further EU integration, but we were united on this point, as were many noble Lords behind the noble Baroness.
	For us, the case that the British people should be allowed to decide was a point of principle. But this afternoon's announcement is not an announcement of principle. The hand of history holds a thousand quotes that reflect the Prime Minister's real view that a referendum need not, and should not, be held. No spin, however artful, can ever wipe them from the record. All of us in this House know the truth. If the Government could have avoided a referendum they would have. They changed their mind only because they fear a total wipe-out in the European elections in June. So, let us not dress up this decision in the clothes of idealism.
	Expediency, not principle, dictated the Statement today. After all, what did the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, tell this House last September when valiantly stonewalling Peer after Peer on a referendum? She said that,
	"a referendum might be right if we needed to consult on creating or joining a new institution, not on reform of an existing institution of which we are already a member".—[Official Report, 9/9/03; col. 276.]
	Why was that right then, but wrong now? What has changed? When did it change? When was the noble Baroness consulted on it?
	The second historic feature of the announcement is that the Government have now accepted that the earth is not flat and that the EU constitution is not a mere tidying-up exercise. The Leader of the House put up a good fist today when repeating the Statement, but she also knows the score. On 29 March, just seven short sitting days ago, when challenged by me to trust the people in a referendum, she said that, in practice, referendums,
	"have been held where there is a wholly new constitutional structure proposed. That is not the case in this instance, and we have made that absolutely clear time and again".
	The noble Baroness told the House that there was no constitutional significance and that there would be no need for a referendum and no vote for the British people. I repeat her words:
	"we have made that absolutely clear time and again".—[Official Report, 29/3/04; col. 1053.]
	How difficult it must be to be a Cabinet Minister loyally following the line when one can be telephoned a few days later—perhaps even from Bermuda—and told to do the political equivalent of engaging reverse gear at 100 miles an hour.
	I am sure that many in this House will share my sense of sympathy with the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernon Dean, who are left high and dry by a U-turn after doggedly defending the indefensible for so long.
	Of course, the Statement did not mention a referendum by name. But will the noble Baroness answer some questions about a referendum? I am sure that the Government have thought about them. Did the noble Baroness see the frankly very surprising remarks of Mr Sam Younger who said that a referendum could not be conducted until the Electoral Commission had seen the results of regional referendums this autumn? What possible relevance do they have to a national referendum? They will be conducted by all-postal ballots, despite the clear distaste of this House for that system. Can the noble Baroness give the House a clear assurance that the traditional ballot box will be used in an EU referendum? Who will frame the question? Will there be talks between parties before any draft is put to the Electoral Commission? Can the noble Baroness confirm that any referendum legislation will provide for equality of expenditure between all those on both sides? Those are important points of principle, which the House will expect to be answered today.
	Finally, I turn to the timing of the referendum. Having resisted a referendum for as long as they could, it now seems that the Government want to delay a vote for as long as possible. I disagree with the Prime Minister about the EU constitution, but I would respect him more if he took his case to the country now. His Statement ended with that fine rhetorical flourish implying that he would do just that. But, of course, that is what it amounted to—so much rhetoric. Just as the bogus attacks on the Conservative Party for wanting to come out of the European Union are just that—so much rhetoric—as my noble friend Mr Howard again made abundantly clear in another place today.
	By delaying a vote, the Government risk giving the impression that they are waiting for a Denmark or a Holland to turn up with a "No" vote and spoil the EU constitutional broth. If I were one of the increasingly grey and grizzled legions of the "Yes" campaign still waiting after seven long years for the imperial nod to be signalled for the campaign to start, I should be deeply disappointed in that. To declare that one wants one thing in public and to one's European allies and to seem to be prevaricating and praying for the opposite in private risks looking weak and pleasing no one. That is why I agree with the Prime Minister in his Statement when he said:
	"Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined".
	It is not UK legislation that is the subject of this referendum, but an EU treaty that may be done and dusted in June.
	I did not notice any worry about the need to have passed legislation holding up enthusiasm for referendums on Scottish or Welsh devolution. But if this is the new government doctrine, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government will now be cancelling regional referendums this autumn until legislation on the assemblies is passed?
	We on this side of the House are ready to agree to facilitate the speedy passage of legislation to enable a referendum to take place this autumn. With the Constitutional Reform Bill able to be carried over and the House of Lords Bill dropped, there is clearly time for new legislation to be taken. Will the noble Baroness therefore agree to call urgent talks with the usual channels to seek agreement on a programme for a referendum Bill this summer? Surely, that is a constructive offer that meets what the public want and offers a sensible way forward.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister. Perhaps I may allow myself one moment of nit-picking following the rather excellent nit-picking by the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. On these Benches, we have one mild objection to the way in which this matter has been handled. It is unfortunate that the Sun and the Times learnt long before Parliament about the change in the Prime Minister's intention with regard to a referendum. I think that we all recognise the brilliance of his back somersault, which would be something of an honour to any circus that could possibly win his attention these days.
	My first question is about the final negotiation of the constitution itself. During the next few weeks there will be a crucial final negotiation of the constitution. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will press the argument for a greater degree of subsidiarity than exists at present? In particular, therefore, will they press for a devolution of decision making to the nation states and below where there are issues that are still in balance between the European Union, the nation states and those other regional and subsidiary agencies? Can the noble Baroness confirm that the larger part of the new constitution devoted to making the enlarged Europe work is a change that would be absolutely essential if a Europe of 25 countries—which is now what we have—is to be effective? Is that one of the major purposes of the new constitution, without which it would be quite difficult to make it work by keeping Nice going for yet longer?
	I congratulate the Government on finally taking a high position in the proposed campaign. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that some of us, including myself, have grown old and grizzled waiting for this to happen. It now having happened, we on these Benches hugely welcome it and congratulate the Government on finally having reached this position.
	Many on these Benches feel very strongly that the remarkable political achievement of the European Union, including the United Kingdom, in bringing about an extension of democracy, an extension of recognition of the rule of law, and an extension of a willingness to settle conflicts peacefully throughout the whole of Europe—West and East—at the present time is an astonishing achievement. It is high time that this country, this Government and the governments of Europe should more widely recognise it. We are happy to take up the Prime Minister's challenge. We have been on the battlefield for a very long time. We look forward to getting the truth across and to making the central argument for a Britain that lies at the heart of a united Europe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their comments. I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord. I am entirely happy with the Government's position, as I am with the statement I made some days ago. I say that because it is absolutely true. Referenda have been used for wholly new constitutional structures. That is not the case here; that has not changed. But the Government recognise that it is time to take on the myths, absurdities and misinformation about Europe. That is what we intend to do and is why we have changed our position.
	We say this clearly and openly: it is not to do with the constitutional position on referenda; it is to do with the myths and absurdities about Europe. There is no problem about that. Given that he has quoted back at me, perhaps the noble Lord would like to hear what his own leader has said about referenda:
	"A pre-legislative referendum is designed to pre-empt parliamentary debate. It is not a new device. The device was the hallmark of continental dictatorships between the wars. European tyrants used the plebiscite to sideline their Parliaments; they used it to suppress the rights and liberties of their citizens".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/97; col. 736.]
	I repeat: those are the words of the leader of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, not mine.
	The noble Lord asked specifically about the timing of the referendum. I think that that was answered in the Statement. We have made it absolutely clear that, if possible, we want to see agreement on the treaty by June. Following that there will be parliamentary debate, after which it will be put to the people. The details have yet to be decided, of course, but the rules that will govern the referendum, including those on funding and campaigning were decided by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Electoral Commission is in charge of ensuring that the rules are upheld.
	I turn to the constructive offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to meet to talk through timetables. That is something that the noble Lord wants to see, but it is not necessarily sought by the whole House.
	I welcome the positive comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, including those on going out and arguing the case very forcefully. In response to her point about a greater degree of subsidiarity, I have looked for the exact quotation in the White Paper but have been unable to find it. However, provisions on subsidiarity are already included in the treaty and we would want to build on those.
	It is absolutely the case that the constitution will make enlargement work. We have said so time and time again. That is why we are in favour of the new structures being proposed. As regards timing, although I may repeat what has been set out in the Statement, some provisions will come into effect in 2007 and others by 2009.
	I turn to the comment made by the chairman of the Electoral Commission, an issue raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I believe that the chairman said that he would prefer the referendum not to coincide with a regional referendum. However, as I have said, we want in any event Parliament to be given the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty first.
	I think that I have addressed all the points that were raised.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in her original Statement the noble Baroness very properly listed those matters over which we and each of the member countries will retain sovereignty. But there are a number of other matters over which we shall either share or surrender sovereignty. Will she kindly list those?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that in certain areas, including defence, social security, taxation and so forth, we have red lines. There are a number of areas—this will not change—where, as a result of successive treaties, issues are dealt with by majority vote rather than by unanimity. I am perfectly happy to write to the noble Lord about those, but the list is rather long.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Parliament has a decisive role to play in this matter? In discharging that role, all the vital provisions of the treaty have to be considered. That is my view.
	Of course, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, refers to "expediency", he forgets entirely that the expediency of the Conservative opposition is dictated by the thought that they can win. However, does my noble friend agree that that would not be the first time that they have been wrong?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that Parliament must play a decisive role. As my noble friend says, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has talked about this matter being a point of principle for his party. I have to say that, if this is a point of principle for his party, there would have been a referendum on Maastricht.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I first heard several days ago, at the weekend, I think, that the Prime Minister had agreed to hold a referendum on this matter. It was discussed at great length on the "Today" programme this morning and it has provided the headlines for the front pages of the newspapers.
	I know that I am old fashioned, but I think it is a very grave discourtesy to Parliament when matters of this kind are leaked to the press before they are made known to both Houses of Parliament; that is to say, unless there is a grave emergency and Parliament is not in session. However, that was not necessary on this occasion.
	I do not accuse the Government specifically; the previous government also made a habit of doing this. However, I do think that it is very discourteous to leak the contents of Statements before presenting them to Parliament.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hear the comments of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. We have come to Parliament and made a Statement. As the noble Lady knows, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was due to make a Statement on the White Paper on Europe. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the Statement instead because of the importance that we attach not only to the White Paper, but to the decision that has been taken about a referendum. That is why we have come to Parliament today.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating with such clarity the Statement in this House. I wonder whether she can tell us how it came about that the BBC, on the 10 o'clock news on Sunday night, was able to intimate that the Government had decided to hold a referendum.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know that the Government do not comment on leaks.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the question is: was it a leak?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have just said. The Government do not comment on leaks.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Statement concludes with the words:
	"Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined".
	I have to tell Members of the House, if they do not know already, that I have been battling for the past 40 years and I am quite happy to continue to do battle for as long as it takes to win the war.
	I welcome the Statement and the fact that we are to have a referendum. However, I have to say that the simple Statement is accompanied by some tendentious argument, which I should like now to join. However, there is no time so I shall not do so.
	My main question is what is meant by Parliament being able to debate the constitution in detail and being able to decide upon it. What will Parliament be able to do? Will it be able to say only yes or no to the constitution or will it be able to debate the constitution in a proper Bill which will be debatable and amendable? That point is important and absolutely crucial. If Parliament is to discuss the matter first, surely it must be able to make amendments to what is a new constitution. I would like a straight answer to what I believe is a straight question.
	Does the noble Baroness agree that once we have the constitution we shall have it for ever, as it can be amended only by unanimity? The provisions of the constitution will be at the will not of our Government or of any other government in the new European Union, but of the European Court of Justice.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has been battling on this point for a very long time. Now we all have the freedom to join in. Of course, I admire his restraint in not going into detail on the specific issues.
	The debate in Parliament will be as on any other treaty. The treaty is unamendable, but the Bill will be amendable. That is what we have always done. My noble friend Lady Symons informs me that with the last treaty that we discussed through a Bill, we spent some 50 hours debating the Bill. It would be wrong to say that Parliament has in any way been short-changed in that process. The noble Lord is right to say that amendment of the constitutional treaty would be by unanimity.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, in explaining the reason why the Government have made this extraordinary change in their attitude towards a referendum, the noble Baroness referred to what I can describe only as the pathetic list of Aunt Sallys that the Statement contained in criticism of the Conservative attitude towards the European Union, none of which, in my view, has any validity. To me they all seem intended to give the impression that a Conservative government would leave the European Union. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness and those on the other side of the House that only one party in Parliament has ever been officially in favour of leaving the European Union and that is hers. The Prime Minister was a leading member of the party at the time.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the leader of the party opposite has made it absolutely clear that he would want to see the treaty renegotiated. That is not the position of any of the other governments in the European Union, which means that, at the end of the day, this matter is about leaving the European Union.

Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, given the Government's well known anxiety about fighting apathy in elections and the importance that a major step of this kind should be embarked upon only with the full-hearted consent of the British people, will the Government introduce into the referendum a minimum threshold, as they did with the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, the details of the referendum are still to be decided.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, assuming the Statement means that we are to have a referendum, can the noble Baroness confirm, at least in general, that the question will specifically refer to the new constitution of the European Union and will not involve wider issues, such as membership of the European Union?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the question will be about the constitutional treaty.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I want to refer back to what I consider are the fundamental issues involved; namely, that one of the biggest developments since the last war has been the creation of the European Union. The second biggest development is the massive extension, by agreement of the present member countries, to include 10 countries of Eastern Europe. Therefore, the task of the Government should be to see that the constitution that is now being debated in Europe is a suitable constitution for that enlargement, which all parties in this country have at one time or another supported. Once that constitution is devised, it is right that Parliament should debate it and it is right that the country should decide on it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The issue concerns the expansion and the enlargement of the European Union. We also have to ensure that in negotiating the treaty we do what is best for Britain.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it true that there are two fundamental errors in the Statement. The first is the suggestion that the proposed treaty is a big advance in subsidiarity. Is it not true that the document that we had before Christmas, which was torpedoed by the Spanish and the Portuguese, allowed for only two-thirds of national governments to object to a Commission proposal? The Commission merely had to take away a proposal, look at it and if it did not want it, it could carry straight on. Secondly, and far more importantly, is the Prime Minister's red line on tax a red herring? Has the Leader of the House read your Lordships' debate on 25 February this year? Although it is clear under the official tax provisions of the treaty, particularly at Clause 93, that unanimity is required for indirect tax, the treaty is silent on direct tax, unless one looks at Clauses 43 to 44—the single market provisions of the treaty—where the Commission is already free to propose, and the court is already free to agree. Is it not clear that direct tax has already passed to Brussels?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made our position clear on this matter. We have said that tax matters will continue to be decided by unanimity. Paragraph 76, on page 35, of the White Paper published in September 2003, states:
	"Tax matters are a key component of national sovereignty and vital to the social and economic well being of the country. It is for this reason that the Government made a manifesto commitment to maintain the UK's tax veto".
	That is why in the IGC the Government will insist that tax matters continue to be decided by unanimity. That was our position when the White Paper was published last year and it continues to be our position.
	The treaty already has major provision for subsidiarity, the mechanism allowing national parliaments to object to any Commission proposals that breach that principle. That is the first time that such a provision has been put in place.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the conflict with what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, that there are many noble Lords in the House who are in favour of postal ballots? The evidence indicates that postal ballots will enable us to reduce the degree of apathy that has been encountered. Will the Government bear in mind that some people are in favour of postal ballots on such issues? When we come to deal with the details of the Bill, it may be possible to introduce postal ballots to extend the franchise to those who cannot get to ballot boxes.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I shall ensure that it is taken on board when the details are being worked through.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that in all such issues the devil is in the detail. What do the Government intend to do to allow both Houses to discuss the difficult and contentious points of detail—the ones that really matter—in full debate, as we would debate a Bill? If we are simply to have a debate, which was all we succeeded in having before December—I recognise that committees in both Houses have produced many reports on the significance of the constitution—ordinary Members of both Houses will have an opportunity to discuss the details. It seems to me that if we are to go to the country saying, "Parliament takes the view"—whatever it is—and, as we know, we cannot revoke the treaty or change the detail, we need to be seen to have discussed the detail so that the public as a whole can know what is at issue.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Baroness. This issue will be debated in the form of a Bill. That means that we will be able to debate each clause. I am not sure whether she clearly understood the point that I made in relation to that.
	I should also say to the noble Baroness that the House has had ample opportunity to discuss European issues. We shall continue to have such opportunities. She will know that during the IGC process a special committee was established to look at this issue, which was open to any Peer or MP to attend.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in 1975 when a referendum was called, the Gallup polls were predicting that people would vote substantially against but by the day of the referendum they were two-thirds in favour? Is it not the case that, on balance, the process that has now been set in train contains a great educational element and that the newspapers, even if they are vitriolically against everything to do with Europe, cannot get in the way of the people understanding the real reasons why we have to go forward together to work out matters in Europe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend: there is a need for a greater educational element and a greater degree of understanding. I am sure my noble friend noticed that when the possibility of a referendum was put to the individuals who were interviewed yesterday, many of them said that they did not understand what the issues are about. I have been pressed many times in the House—particularly by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches—about the need for the Government to engage in a public awareness-raising campaign on these issues.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, further to the previous question and the Minister's reply, sadly, some of us have been over this course of a referendum in relation to Europe many times in the past. But, as the Government have now set their face on this course, is the Minister aware that the reason for the degree of negative public opinion about Britain in Europe is, at least, very substantially a result of the timidity of the Government in dealing with these issues? Now that they have set their course and we have immediately ahead of us elections involving Europe, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will now pull out all the stops and unequivocally back the case for Britain being at the very heart of an expanded European Union?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that that is entirely what the Government want to do. The robust nature of the Statement made that absolutely clear.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain how the Bill can be amendable if the treaty to which it refers is unamendable?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, so long as any amendments proposed to the Bill do not amend the treaty, the Bill is of course amendable.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, can the Minister answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde? She did not mention the word "referendum".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am terribly sorry but we are out of time.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about a report I have received from the Independent Monitoring Commission concerning paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.
	"Before I move to the substance of my Statement, I should like to take this opportunity to condemn in the strongest terms yesterday's sending of suspect packages to two elected representatives in Northern Ireland, the honourable Member for Belfast East and Mr Alex Attwood. I am sure the whole House will join me in that. Police investigations into these incidents are continuing.
	"As the House will recall, the Independent Monitoring Commission was set up by an international agreement, supported by legislation we passed in this place last year. It is composed of four distinguished members: John Grieve, former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Lord Alderdice, formerly Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly, both nominated by the British Government; Mr Joseph Brosnan, formerly the Secretary of the Irish Department of Justice, nominated by the Irish Government; and Mr Dick Kerr, formerly the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in the United States, nominated by the US Administration.
	"Last Wednesday, the British and Irish Governments received the commission's first report. I am today laying it before the House as I am required to do by law. Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office at the conclusion of my Statement.
	"The report is concerned with the continuing activities of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. The commission had originally expected to produce the report in the early summer but, at the request of the Governments, it has brought its production forward. At the request of the Governments, the report also specifically addresses the incident that took place at Kelly's Cellars, Belfast, on 20 February 2004 in the context of its wider analysis. That event, as the House will recall, caused profound controversy in Northern Ireland. This has in turn disrupted the conduct of the review of the operation of the Good Friday agreement that began earlier this year.
	"We are most grateful to the commission for advancing its report. This has clearly involved a great deal of work by all concerned. Notwithstanding the pressures of time, I believe they have produced a very thorough and far-reaching report. Both Governments accept the commission's conclusions and recommendations.
	"The commission states that the situation it is now addressing is much better than it was in past years. However, the commission finds that paramilitary activity is at a disturbingly high level on the part of both republican and loyalist groups. I quote from the commission's report:
	'On the basis of reported figures—which, especially for assaults, may not reflect the full picture—the scale of paramilitary violence since 1 January 2003 has been worryingly high: approaching one murder a month; some three victims a week both from shootings and from assaults'.
	"The commission goes on to state that two parties represented in the Assembly, Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party, have links with paramilitary groups. It is clear from the report that senior politicians are in a position to exercise significant influence over their activities.
	"The commission also expresses its belief that the incident in Belfast on 20 February was the responsibility of the Provisional IRA.
	"The commission urges elected politicians in Northern Ireland to commit themselves to supporting the rule of law and the criminal justice institutions.
	"The commission says that, in the absence of a sitting Northern Ireland Assembly, it is not possible for it to make recommendations on measures which the Assembly itself might consider taking in response to its report. However, the commission makes clear that,
	'had the Assembly now been functioning, we would have recommended in respect of Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party measures up to and possibly including exclusion from office'.
	"But, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, the commissions recommends—and I quote—that I,
	'should consider taking action in respect of the salary of Assembly members and/or the funding of Assembly parties so as to impose an appropriate financial measure in respect of Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party'.
	"When we debated the legislation relating to the commission last year in this House, I made it clear that the Government believed it very important that the commission's recommendations should be given effect. And I indicated that, in circumstances where the commission had made recommendations but action had not been taken, I would be able to use the powers of last resort granted to me by the Act to take action myself in line with such recommendations.
	"In the light of this, and having considered the report, I am persuaded that it would be right to remove for a period the entitlement to the block financial assistance paid to Assembly parties in respect of both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party; and I propose to do so next Wednesday, 28 April.
	"I have therefore today made an order under the urgency procedure, amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as amended by the legislation we passed last year, to allow me to take this step in the absence of a sitting Assembly. It will also permit me to act to reduce Members' salaries should I see fit to do so in the light of a future IMC report.
	"I will, however, in line with the legal requirement on me to act fairly, take account of any representations I receive by next Tuesday from the two parties concerned, before reaching a final decision.
	"The commission's other recommendations, all of which the British Government endorse, include that paramilitary groups must cease all forms of criminal activity; and that all politicians and others in prominent roles must exert every possible influence to bring about a cessation of paramilitary activity.
	"I hope that this report, and the firm but carefully measured action that the Government are taking in response to it, will underline that it is essential that all paramilitary activity, from whatever quarter, should cease fully and completely. The commission's next report on paramilitary activity will be able to test whether that has happened and, if not, whether further action is needed.
	"In the mean time, the Government remain firmly committed to the idea that political progress can only be achieved through dialogue. I shall continue to meet all the parties in Northern Ireland to explore how we can achieve the basis for a restoration of the devolved institutions. Already in the context of the review, a number of interesting proposals have been made. There is still much to discuss.
	"This report underlines starkly what steps need to be taken if we are genuinely to move forward to stable and inclusive devolved government. I must reiterate what the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and others have said on many occasions: all paramilitary activity must come to an end if there is to be a stable future for devolved government in Northern Ireland. That is what the Prime Minister spelt out when he talked of acts of completion. It is what both Governments made clear in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. The commission itself recognises in its report that violence and the threat of violence can have no part in democratic politics.
	"The Independent Monitoring Commission has, I believe, a vital role to play in securing that development and underpinning it once devolved government is re-established. It has, through this report, demonstrated its impartiality, its competence and its willingness to speak the truth, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. I believe the whole House will be grateful to it".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place and, overall, welcome it. Noble Lords on this side of the House wish to associate themselves with the comments in the report concerning the suspect packages which were sent to Mr Peter Robinson, MP, and Mr Alex Attwood.
	We welcome the report; we also welcome Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of it. I congratulate the commission on the courage it has shown in facing the facts and the forthright way in which it has presented them. I also thank it for reporting so promptly—admittedly, under pressure from this side of the House and, in turn, from the Government. But it has done so and has, I suspect, faced considerable difficulty in so doing. We owe it our thanks.
	For most of us in this House and those of us who live in Northern Ireland, there is little new in the report. We have known for many years that the level of paramilitary activity has been totally unacceptable and would never have been accepted in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have known of the organised crime syndicates run by the paramilitary groups, including extortion, drugs and smuggling.
	We have also known that on both sides, political parties—one of which has played a role in the government of Northern Ireland and, believe it or not, still has that aim—are in control of many of the organisations and that their political parties and terrorist organisations are funded by these illegal activities. What, perhaps, is even worse, is that they are also in control of the areas on the ground in which they operate. This report, for the first time, confirms this—and that is to be welcomed.
	Paragraph 7.5 of the report also confirms that,
	"Sinn Fein must bear its responsibility for the continuation by PIRA of illegal paramilitary activity and must recognise the implications of being in this position".
	In this context, does the Minister share my concern at the words of Martin McGuinness, one-time Minister of Education for Northern Ireland, in a speech he made at Carrickmore on Easter Sunday—just last week—when he paid tribute to the role the IRA had played "and continues to play" in the struggle for Irish freedom?
	I wish to ask the noble Baroness a number of questions. What further measures will Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that all the areas of Northern Ireland are fully policed and that there are no "soft areas"—known at one time as "no-go" areas—in which paramilitaries can operate with comparative immunity? Will she undertake to ensure that the full force of the Customs and Excise is available to stamp out smuggling and that there are no "soft corners" of the border in this regard? Smuggling has been going on in a major way, which is a disgrace in Europe, let alone inside the United Kingdom.
	Furthermore, will the noble Baroness confirm that the watchtowers in South Armagh, which are principally there to help to prevent such irregularities as smuggling, will remain and that there will be no more security normalisation moves until the Independent Monitoring Commission reports that, in its opinion, the security situation in Northern Ireland has indeed been normalised and there have been acts of completion?
	Does the noble Baroness really think that the financial sanctions against Sinn Fein and the PUP will have any significant impact, given their access to alternative, illegal forms of funding? Will she ask her right honourable friends in the other place to remove all the privileges, offices and allowances given by this Government to Sinn Fein in the Palace of Westminster? Will she confirm that in respect of Sinn Fein participating in the government of Northern Ireland, the same rules will apply in Belfast that the Taoiseach rightly insists upon in Dublin?
	Finally, I was going to wish Her Majesty's Government well in the discussions that were due to take place next week. These, we understand, have now been cancelled. Could the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council enlighten us as to why?

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, the Lord President of the Council, for repeating the Statement that was issued in the Commons. I also thank the Independent Monitoring Commission for its report. I reiterate the concern, and condemn the sending of the suspect packages to the two Northern Ireland politicians.
	The report is a very valuable document by the independent monitors, setting out the position as they see it. If one looks at the schedule of the paramilitary groups, the report makes for a very sobering read. Seven groups are listed, and the report states that the seventh, the UVF and the RHC,
	"are linked organisations. Both are relatively small, the latter particularly so. The number of their active members is a few hundred".
	The report says "relatively", but relative to what? How many can there be in the seven groups of paramilitary organisations altogether? If a few hundred is relatively small, the total must be very large indeed. There is a problem in terms of the numbers in paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, whether they are active or dormant.
	The major finding from the report is that there is less death but more damage. There is less death—although there are still deaths created by acts of the paramilitaries—but more damage. There has been a steady increase in shootings and assaults, and paramilitary theft and drug dealing on top of the violence. We are told that the ceasefires have meant a more peaceful Northern Ireland, but we must move on from ceasefires to the totality of illegal paramilitary activity.
	The report then refers to the two groups that have Assembly links and what should be the sanctions. When we refer to sanctions, we are really talking about fine judgments. The report recommends reducing or withdrawing the salaries of Assembly Members or the funding for Assembly parties. Those are among the lowest of the sanctions in the rankings set out in the report. Five of the sanctions may be exercised by the Secretary of State, but, because the Assembly is not functioning, perhaps these are the only two that are left.
	I wonder whether it is wise to use what appears to be a minor sanction relating to the loss of some funding to the Assembly parties. Would it not turn those people in the wrong direction further still? Is that sanction wise when the five other paramilitary groups would not be affected by any sanction of that nature, especially if it were decided to withdraw salaries? Bearing in mind the comments of my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton about the withdrawal of salaries in other circumstances, is this the right step to take with this group of Assembly Members? It may be the right course of action for the totality of Assembly Members if it really does seem that there is no prospect of the Assembly functioning again.
	My second point is related to what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was talking about. Where are we going when we talk about moving forward? I had the privilege of being in the other place where I heard the Minister answer the various questions that were asked. An honourable Member asked why the talks were being deferred, and the Minister replied that there had not been enough time to prepare. I do not think that lack of time to prepare has been a problem, by and large, in Northern Ireland. There has been all of this century and most of the last, so I do not understand this lack of preparation. What is the real hold-up? I worry that a vacuum is being created, and vacuums in Northern Ireland are not a good thing. Idle hands tend to find something to fill them. What is the score in terms of moving forward?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to respond to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Shutt of Greetland. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that there was little new in the report and that the people of Northern Ireland knew what had been happening to them. He is quite right. The report reflects what is happening on the ground. As he said, it does not necessarily make very pleasant reading.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke about "soft areas". There are no areas where the security forces do not operate and where the rule of law does not run in Northern Ireland. Of course, it is harder to operate in some areas than others, but the police nevertheless do operate. I know that the Chief Constable takes very seriously the activity set out in the IMC report. He is and always has been determined to tackle these problems. The noble Lord knows that the establishment of a crime operations department, the introduction of the national intelligence model, engagement in the Organised Crime Task Force and engagement with the Assets Recovery Agency all build on the Police Service of Northern Ireland's expertise in tackling paramilitary activity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked about the normalisation process. I reassure the noble Lord that the normalisation programme annexed to the joint declaration of May last year has not begun, nor will it begin until the necessary enabling environment is in place. He also pressed me on would happen next, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland. We all know that the events of 20 February created a hiatus in the review process. It is important that we now do all that we can to resume dialogue. There are important issues on the review agenda and the sooner that we can get back to them the better. Noble Lords will be aware that the two Governments are meeting tomorrow at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, where we shall take stock on the future shape of review activity. My right honourable friend said in another place that we hope that the intensive discussions that we had anticipated starting next week will now resume a little later in the summer.
	On having the same rules in Belfast as in Dublin, we have made it absolutely clear that there is no future for devolved government in Northern Ireland except where all its Members are committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means. We will continue to make that point.
	The issue of salaries was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who also made wider points about the proposed sanctions. The commission makes it clear that,
	"had the Assembly now been functioning, we would have recommended in respect of Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party measures up to and possibly including exclusion from office",
	which is the highest sanction provided for under the 1998 scheme. However, the Assembly is not functioning, and the commission found a different sanction more appropriate. We believe that the act of imposing these measures as well as the substance of them demonstrates clearly the unacceptability of the conduct revealed in the report.
	We should not forget that crimes continue to be investigated by the police and the perpetrators brought to justice. This is not an "either/or". We are working to the political elements that the report has identified. Indeed, it talks about the nature of political leadership in this respect, which is an important matter for us to address.
	On the wider point of salaries in the Assembly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he will conduct some kind of review of that in the not-too-distant future.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can the Minister give an undertaking on the Customs and Excise point?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my apologies for not responding to that point. I believe that the noble Lord asked me to assure him that the full force of Customs and Excise will be made available. I can assure him on that point.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement repeated by the Lord President, and the report from the International Monitoring Commission. The report highlights the stark truth about the continued paramilitarism, racketeering and gangsterism in Northern Ireland today. It uses plain language to spell out the nature of those activities and the groups behind them. As has been discussed today and on previous occasions, the proceeds of those heinous crimes fund political parties—the very same political parties that the IMC has recommended taking action against. There is therefore a clear case that, alongside the financial penalties announced today, the Government should also use the findings of the report to bolster the resources and powers of the Assets Recovery Agency, so that moneys gained through these illegal activities are once again cut off from the perpetrators of the crimes. Moreover, the Secretary of State should use his powers under the prisoner release legislation to ensure that those responsible are taken from our streets once and for all.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his comments. In response to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I made it absolutely clear that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will work with all those who have a responsibility in this respect, including the Assets Recovery Agency.
	The IMC made clear that all politicians and others in prominent roles must exert every possible influence to bring about a cessation of paramilitary activity. The commission notes that organised crime does not recognise borders. This is something that needs to be tackled not only in Northern Ireland but more broadly. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that the Assets Recovery Agency, the new body, is working well.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we reached the Belfast agreement in 1998, the southern Irish Government were specifically excluded from the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Does she recognise now that a representative of the southern Irish Government has been involved for the first time in deciding the affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly? That is a precedent for a representative of the southern Irish Government to be making recommendations as to the payments for Members of the Assembly and whether they should be suspended. This is a historic moment: the Dublin Government are involved in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	Secondly, does the Minister recognise that throughout Northern Ireland, among both the nationalist and Unionist communities, the Government will be laughed at for their decision to have minimal deductions in moneys made available to Sinn Fein, which is one of the richest political parties in Europe? Sinn Fein will laugh, the SDLP will be horrified, and Unionists will laugh as well. The Government have acted very badly in that matter. It will have no impact whatever.
	Thirdly, and regrettably, does the Minister recognise that Sinn Fein/IRA, by continuing its violence, holds a veto over the establishment of a devolved government at Stormont? Therefore, regrettably, the Government must soon proceed with the decision that a devolved government on the basis of the Belfast agreement is unattainable and that sooner rather than later the suspended Assembly will have to be dissolved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked me three questions. I shall seek to answer all of them.
	On the first point, about the representative from the Irish Government, the IGC terms make it absolutely clear where that representative can be involved. If the noble Lord would like me to spell that out in greater detail, I shall be very happy to do so in writing.
	As for the deductions that have been taken and the decisions made in relation to the sanctions, the noble Lord will know, having looked at the report, that we are carrying out the recommendation made by the IMC. If the Assembly had been sitting, of course, different sanctions would have been available. I recognise that to a certain extent that is symbolic—it is an expression of disapproval. But it is very important, having said that we would carry out the recommendations made to us by the IMC, that we seek to do so to the best extent possible.
	On the noble Lord's final point, he will be aware that we have been working together through this process, trying to ensure that there is an inclusive process that leads to greater stability and to devolved government in Northern Ireland. That is our aim, and we shall continue to seek to achieve that.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, while I understand some of the misgivings expressed on the Liberal Democrat Benches, on balance I welcome this report and the Government's proposal for action with effect from 28 April. The level of murders and personal violence described in the Statement is clearly unacceptable, even if it is much lower than that which prevailed before 1994. The question therefore arises of how we reduce and prevent that violence.
	I suggest to the Leader of the House that a combined effort is required, through public opinion, particularly as is articulated and expressed through the Churches and voluntary organisations, through the legitimate constitutional political parties and, of course, through all government agencies, some of which have been mentioned already, notably the security services. Do the Government accept that such a combined effort is necessary and will they, in conjunction with the Irish Government, give that kind of leadership from day to day? Will they orchestrate a campaign to eliminate violence and thus to give the Belfast agreement a chance to function as was intended?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I feel that the Government have been seeking to give precisely the kind of leadership that he has just articulated. Of course, a combined effort is required. We could not achieve what we want without the people of Northern Ireland themselves wanting to see it achieved, and they have made their views on these matters absolutely clear. Of course, we need to have the parties on board, which is why we have sought to maintain an inclusive process while making it absolutely clear that paramilitary activity must end. Of course, the government agencies need to be involved, and the role in this process of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other agencies, including Customs and Excise, is absolutely crucial.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the Statement, I would also like to condemn the two recent letter bombs, or suspected letter bombs, one of which was sent to one of my colleagues on the Policing Board.
	The report has brought home for the first time to everybody in Westminster as a whole what we have been saying for a long while; I refer to what is going on on the ground. The commission has made a tremendous job of producing the report in a short time. However, people should not consider that it gives the whole story; the commission would say that it would have liked more time.
	I take minor issue with one point, which is given on page 19, where the commission states:
	"The situation we now address is much better".
	Will the Lord President say exactly what that refers to? There is only one graph in this report that shows any improvement, which relates to the recent number of deaths attributable to paramilitaries and goes back only to 1998.
	The commission has not existed for long and we must go back further than that to the first cease-fire, for instance. There was a period between about 1994 and 1997 when things improved dramatically. If one takes out the reduction in the number of people being killed, every other statistic is worse than it was in that period. The other graphs show that matters are going on steadily. The one graph which goes back any distance is on page 20, which covers paramilitary-style shootings and assaults. It shows a dramatic increase. Therefore I differ on accepting that conditions are better. I feel that when the commission produces its next report, and I ask the Minister when that will be, it will show that in the very short term things may, in its view, be slightly better, but in the medium term they are worse than they have been for some time.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Viscount has identified the complexity of the situation with which we are dealing. The report makes absolutely clear—I am looking at page 25—that while the number of murders, attacks on security forces and bombings by paramilitaries has sharply decreased, the level of other paramilitary violence has been, and continues to be, considerably higher than before the Belfast agreement. The report goes on to extrapolate from that.
	The commission has been asked to report twice yearly so I am anticipating that the next report will be in about six months' time.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I also very much welcome this report and am greatly encouraged by it, with the reservations that have been expressed around the House, but I have two questions. First, are any steps going to be taken to publicise this report in the United States? It is surely a reasoned counter to the claims made by Sinn Fein in the article for which it paid. Secondly, will the commission address the issue of the impossibility of people speaking to the press about what happens to them or turning to the police about it? I make a distinction between what the police do and the degree to which the community feels free to go to them. I should like answers to those two questions.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the answer to the first question on publicising the report in the United States is, "Yes". Steps will be taken to do that. One of the members of the IMC is nominated by the United States Government.
	On the noble Baroness's second point, which I think is asking whether the IMC will be able to investigate the difficulties that individuals have in speaking openly about what has happened to them, one of the things that the IMC made clear in this report is that it did not rely on evidence from security sources but went elsewhere to get the kind of evidence used in this report. It has made it clear that this is something that it will want to continue to do. I am sure that it will take on board the debate that we are now having on this issue and I shall come back to the noble Baroness with more detail on this point if I can.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Energy Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Lord Ezra: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	Annual report on energy efficiency
	The Secretary of State shall publish in such form as he sees fit an annual report setting out what steps he has taken and proposes to take to secure carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency of 5MtC per annum by 2010 and a further 4MtC per annum by 2020."

Lord Ezra: My Lords, this amendment raises an important aspect of the Government's energy policy, where it is made quite clear that energy efficiency must play a very large part in securing the reduced carbon emissions to which the Government are committed under the Kyoto objectives and in other ways. I realise that the Government are shortly to produce a report on domestic energy efficiency and, no doubt, that will contain a lot of positive proposals, which we shall be interested to read. Unfortunately, this is our last opportunity to introduce a provision on this subject into the Bill. Therefore, in anticipation of that report, and on the assumption that it will stick to the indications given in the Energy White Paper, we feel that this should be an opportunity for stating quite clearly that these are the objectives.
	The fact is that these were not clearly stated as objectives in the White Paper but it was subsequently made quite clear in statements by Ministers that the Government considered themselves committed to it. For example, I remind the Minister that, in answer to a Question from my noble friend Lady Maddock in October of last year he said that the Government regarded it as a commitment to save 5 million tonnes of carbon emissions by the year 2010. In his consultative document on ways in which fiscal measures could be introduced to stimulate energy savings, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated these objectives at the beginning of that report. As this issue was in the Energy White Paper, and as Ministers have repeatedly stated their commitment to these objectives, we feel that this is an opportunity to give this important issue statutory backing. It goes no further than the White Paper, no further than has been reiterated by Ministers on a number of occasions and I therefore beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I owe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, an apology for not having put my name down to this very important amendment, which we most certainly support. Indeed, it is an apology to the rest of the House, who did not realise that we support this amendment. Why should they have realised that?
	During the passage of the Sustainable Energy Bill, which is now an Act, on 12 September last year, I said that:
	"We want . . . to ensure that the annual report is about real progress on real, firm, binding and achievable targets and not about vague and woolly 'policy goals'".—[Official Report, 12/9/03; col. 616]
	But the Government would not accept such a clause and, regrettably, in another place they were able to force those who wanted such a clause to back down rather than lose the Bill.
	The proposed new clause, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has just spoken, is very similar. It would require the Government to report on real progress and specific measures taken, and proposed, to achieve the savings from domestic energy efficiency announced in their own White Paper of 5 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) per annum by 2010 and a further 4 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2020. The case for such a measure, which was strong enough last year, has become even more overwhelming and unanswerable in the light of recent developments, of which I shall mention just a few.
	The Government's own sustainable energy policy website now lists the CO2 savings specified in the proposed new clause of 5MtC per annum by 2010 and a further 4MtC per annum by 2020 as "commitments" and "objectives". The proposed new clause requires the Government only to tell the public how they are getting on in achieving their own policy. Do the Government really object to that?
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed that that was the commitment in a Written Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on 27 October 2003. Some 335 Members of the House of Commons—more than half the House—signed Early Day Motion No. 96 in support of the target, so we know the views of the elected representatives. By passing the proposed new clause today we in this House would respond to the views freely held, without pressure from their Whips, by Members of Parliament.
	In the past year CO2 emissions have increased by nearly 2 per cent, making domestic energy efficiency all the more important. As the energy White Paper calls energy efficiency the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of achieving energy policy objectives, the public are entitled to know what the Government are doing, and propose to do, to reach the savings that are required by 2010 and the further savings that are required by 2020. While no one doubts that sustainable energy may cost money, we are all entitled to know that the cheapest viable option is being given due priority year in and year out.
	The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has reported that at least 50 per cent more resources are needed if the Government's duty to end fuel poverty, established under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which was successfully promoted by my honourable friend David Amess, is to be met. Those organisations involved with combating fuel poverty have all written to the Secretary of State calling for a 20 per cent increase in domestic energy efficiency by 2010. The Government have already agreed that that 20 per cent is equivalent to savings of 5MtC, as specified in the proposed new clause. We need the new clause to ensure that we receive proper reports to show that the Government are on course to comply with the law.
	In addition to the letter to the Secretary of State from all those involved in combating fuel poverty, just about every large industry and trade association concerned with producing energy saving materials has written in a similar vein stating that,
	"if we are to secure the necessary funding (i.e. investment by the industry) then absolute and unambiguous quantified carbon saving commitments will be needed from government".
	Today I have seen a document containing the highlighted words, "Policy in Confidence". It is a draft of the Government's energy efficiency implementation plan written on 2 March 2004. Paragraph 96 of the document states:
	"However, the most recent update of the United Kingdom's energy projections has highlighted the fact that changes to our baseline projections mean that the existing package of measures may no longer be sufficient to keep us on track to deliver the expected absolute"—
	the word "absolute" is underlined—
	"emission levels. The current climate change programme is likely to under deliver by up to 7.5 MtC per annum in 2010".
	The proposed new clause is all about commitments. It is about clear annual reporting on what the Government have done and what they propose to do. I refer to public accountability, the environment, combating fuel poverty, enabling British industry to invest and, indeed, public honesty.
	I urge the Government to accept the very important new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If they do not, my colleagues will raise it in another place. My Front Bench team has also signed Early Day Motion No. 96, which I mentioned earlier. If the Government really do not want the measure and wish to defeat it, they will have to bully more than 200 Labour Members of Parliament who have repeatedly signed up to support these commitments, more than 100 of whom have issued press releases to their local papers committing themselves to supporting the commitments.
	A final reason why the Government should accept the proposed new clause is contained in paragraph 3.49 of the energy White Paper. In that paragraph the Government promised that,
	"we will report annually, as part of the follow up to this white paper, on progress towards achieving the savings we have set out".
	Now is the time for the Government to show that they really meant those words.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept what both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said about the importance of energy efficiency and I do not resile at all from the objectives set out in that respect in the White Paper. However, the Government cannot accept that this amendment is necessary. The amendment would duplicate what is already in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. It would also duplicate the energy efficiency aim which is to be published in fulfilment of the provisions of that Act, and to which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred.
	The 2003 Act obliges the Secretary of State to publish annually a sustainable energy report on progress towards the four goals of energy policy as set out in the energy White Paper. That clearly includes progress on all the main contributors towards that goal, which include energy efficiency. Therefore, we are already obliged to do that. We shall shortly publish a first annual report and the energy efficiency implementation plan of which the noble Baroness appears to have had sight of an early draft. We are doing that in pursuit not only of our commitments but also of the obligations under the Sustainable Energy Act. The principle in the measure that we are discussing would duplicate that. The figures in the proposed new clause are contained in the energy White Paper and are the figures on which we shall have to report progress.
	Improving energy efficiency is particularly important in achieving the absolute carbon goals and in achieving the fuel poverty targets. Therefore, that matter will be covered in considerable detail in the annual report and the related papers. The proposed new clause would constitute a new energy efficiency aim which is already an obligation on the Secretary of State under the Sustainable Energy Act. As I say, we intend to fulfil that obligation shortly in the energy efficiency implementation plan. If accepted, the proposed new clause would duplicate a requirement that already exists. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that some of the points were covered in the energy White Paper. Will he not accept that what is in an energy White Paper is obviously not part of a Bill anyway? Might he slightly reconsider the answer that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because the two simply do not add up?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Sustainable Energy Act obliges the Secretary of State to report annually—that is the report that will be coming shortly—on progress towards the objectives of the White Paper. Therefore that aspect of the White Paper, as others, will be covered in that report and associated documents. We are already obliged to do that. No one is changing the nature of the energy White Paper's objectives, and nor are we resiling from the obligation to report just that under the Sustainable Energy Act.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for her powerful support for the amendment, and I thank the Minister for his considered response. However, I must say that the Bill provides us with an opportunity to emphasise the importance that we attach to restating the specific commitments mentioned in the energy White Paper. That White Paper has no statutory significance, and the amendment would give it statutory significance. That is all the more important in the light of the figures cited by the noble Baroness about the fact that, in the past two years, carbon emissions have actually increased.
	We must restate very clearly the objective of achieving the 5 million tonnes' reduction in carbon emissions in the domestic market by 2010. The figure is actually 4 million to 6 million tonnes in the White Paper in the succeeding 10 years. I cannot see why the Government should object to that restatement, to which they have repeatedly committed themselves. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 4 [Constitution of NDA]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) Subsection (5) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 30. These amendments are designed to smooth the creation of the NDA. All sides of the House have in principle supported the establishment of the NDA. Nuclear clean up is important and pressing and we want the NDA to get on with the job as fast as possible.
	While there are certain advantages in introducing a Bill in the House of Lords, there are some disadvantages. One of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has said, relates to the rules on the commitment of public resources in advance of Second Reading in another place. When a Bill starts here there are certain constraints which have a knock-on effect. It has meant that appointments to the NDA Board cannot be made as soon after Royal Assent as we had originally intended. That will have a knock-on effect on the appointment of the chief executive, who, under Clause 4(3), is to be appointed by the non-executive members. Our target date for the NDA to take on its responsibilities for nuclear clean-up is 1 April next year. It is a challenging, but achievable, target. There is much to do if the NDA is to be set up and provided with the necessary infrastructure so that it is able to prepare and secure approval for its first annual plan in time to start on 1 April.
	In the light of that, it is essential that work on establishing the NDA can start as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The chief executive will have a key role in driving the start-up work that is necessary for the NDA to function. Decisions on people, buildings, IT systems and support services are all needed before the NDA can begin its preparatory work. But, as the Bill is currently drafted, the NDA could not start operating until four members are appointed. That would push the appointment of a chief executive until well into the autumn of this year and would slow down the development of a fully functional NDA.
	We propose to change the transitional arrangements for the creation of the NDA so that it is established on the appointment of the chairman and for that person to be joined swiftly by the chief executive officer. That will enable the practical work on creating the NDA to start, as we had originally envisaged, soon after Royal Assent which, final approval of the Bill permitting, should mean that we do not lose precious weeks in August and September.
	The amendments also put in place arrangements to reflect our determination to ensure the non-executive control that the Bill requires for the NDA board to go forward. During that initial period, the chairman's approval is required for any decision taken by the chief executive until there are sufficient non-executive members to meet the quorum test, as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1.
	The initial period would come to an end when the NDA board reached its required minimum complement of seven members, or at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That option is provided so that any unexpected delay in the appointment of the chief executive does not itself become a block to establishing the NDA through the appointment of non-executives. Amendment No. 2 specifically provides for Scottish Ministers to be consulted on the appointments during the transitional period and before Clause 4 on the constitution of the NDA comes into force.
	The Government intend to appoint the chairman and then chief executive as soon after Royal Assent as possible—hopefully in late July or early August this year. Non-executive appointments could realistically follow around September, following a recruitment process begun after Second Reading in another place. That explains the timetable.
	These amendments seek to facilitate the early development of a functioning NDA in the period after Royal Assent. I stress that, because a previous debate here and a question to my noble friend Lord Triesman from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, dealt with appointments procedures prior to Royal Assent. The Department of Trade and Industry has taken steps to recruit a chairman and chief executive officer designate as senior policy advisers in advance of Second Reading in another place. These provisions do not relate to that. Nothing that is in the Bill can affect the situation prior to Royal Assent. The advertisements for those posts make it clear that the appointments would not be confirmed as chief executive and chair unless the Bill was passed.
	The two debates need to be separated. These provisions should allow us to have a relatively speedy and smooth transition to the establishment of the NDA—which would not happen under the Bill as currently drafted. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a short question in relation to the amendment. Does it still mean that, in spite of the wording, there will be consultation over the specific individuals who will be appointed, not just over the general idea of the type of people who will be required? It is important that those people are acceptable north of the Border, because the role of the NDA impacts so much on devolved matters, such as planning, roads, health and so on.
	Also, is there a precedent for the sort of arrangements that are outlined in Amendment No. 30? Have there been similar interim arrangements on the face of any previous Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I wish to raise a small point. Is the Government's hope to have the provisional agency in place so quickly somewhat over-ambitious? It seems to me that anyone who is likely to be suitable to be, first, the Government's adviser, then, in effect, chairman designate and then chairman, must already be in employment. If he is not on three months' notice, then he is probably not doing a job that would make him suitable for a post of this significance. The same would apply to a chief executive appointment, which cannot be made until after the chairman is in post to appoint him. That seems to me to indicate at least a six-month timetable from Royal Assent. That is when the Minister appeared to indicate that the process would seriously get going. I believe that the Government would be wiser to look at the end of the year rather than at September.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for writing to me prior to today to explain his amendments in detail. I also thank his team for giving a week's notice of their tabling. I thought it appropriate to say that in view of the complaints I made when amendments were tabled only on the previous day. We are not always critical; sometimes we are most appreciative.
	We also appreciate the Government's comment that they want to get on with setting up the NDA during the passage of the Bill. Unlike suggestions made in an article in the Financial Times, delaying the Bill's implementation is most certainly not the intention of these Benches. We merely want to do our job properly and carefully and to scrutinise the details of the Bill before it reaches the other place where, unfortunately, Members will not have the time to do so to the extent that we do in this House.
	We therefore welcome Amendment No. 2 with the proviso that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory, comforting answer to my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Dixon-Smith. However, as I have spoken to the Minister previously, he will know that there were reasons why we were glad that he did not move the amendment on Report. Certain matters about which my noble friend Lord Jenkin was particularly concerned had not been sorted out to our satisfaction.
	Noble Lords might remember that in Committee, my noble friend Lord Jenkin said a little about the advertisement that the DTI had placed for a policy adviser who would then de facto become the chairman of the NDA. It was noted that the DTI wished to appoint a policy adviser to advise on the preparations required for the establishment of the NDA who would be appointed as a non-executive chairman.
	Our concern was that this advert not only missed out on possible applicants for the chairman's post by dressing it up as a policy adviser, but we also believed that it may well have broken Treasury rules—the Minister mentioned those—that money should not be allocated for use in conjunction with the Bill until it has received a Second Reading in the other place.
	The Minister will also know that my noble friend Lord Jenkin pursued the matter with both the Public Accounts Committee and the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Regrettably, we are not today in a position to give a definitive answer on either of the two matters. With regard to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the gentleman dealing with the matter has not been in his office for a few days. Furthermore, he is not answering his mobile phone, so it may well be that he is on holiday.
	With regard to the Public Accounts Committee, we may well receive an answer during the course of the afternoon. As I mentioned to the Minister, we were able to see a draft reply, which had not been seen by the chairman, simply indicating that the letter of the rules,
	"may be said to be followed".
	However, whether the spirit of them has been followed is much more debatable.
	We do not want to delay matters. I am sure that in a moment the Minister will answer my two noble friends. I shall accept what he has said and the fact that our two problems do not present a reason for rejecting the amendment. They do not interfere with it. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkin will be satisfied by what I have done on his behalf, but it is clear that if the position is not correct we will be able to make a protest later. What I have said will be reported in Hansard today.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, consultation would be on individuals under the normal rules and consultation with Scotland would be appropriately covered. However, I am not sure that I can draw an exact precedent and I shall write to the noble Baroness. Of course, in setting up new bodies, ways of moving to their full establishment via transitional arrangements have been adopted in various Acts of Parliament, including the way in which we appoint chief executives prior to the full board being operational. Although it may not be precisely the same as the case here, I am sure that there are broadly similar precedents. I shall draw those to her attention.
	In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it may be true that our ambitious target in making the appointment of the chairman and chief executive presents a tight and challenging time-scale. Some people who might be the most appropriate candidates may not be appointable within that time, in which case the timetable might slip a little. But that is all the more reason for starting the process as early as possible. That is why we want to include these provisions. Even if we lose a week or two during the summer, the most appropriate candidate can be appointed as soon as possible.
	I am grateful for the acceptance of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the provisions are helpful and different from the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in Committee and on Report and in his correspondence with the commissioner and the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The correspondence will go back to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and may affect that situation. However, that relates to appointments prior to Royal Assent and these proposed amendments do not affect that position one way or the other. Clearly, we would need to take note of anything the chair of the Public Accounts Committee or the commissioner said about the procedure, but the amendments do not affect it. They affect the procedure post Royal Assent and I commend them to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Designated responsibilities]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 4, line 15, at end insert "; and
	(g) the commissioning, planning and developing of nuclear power stations."

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I tabled the amendment partly as a hopeful nudge in moving the Government in a sensible direction and partly as a continuing protest against their lack of an energy policy, which is characterised by their White Paper and by this Bill. It is a feature of that policy that hopes are taken as facts and aspirations as achievements. As even Ministers should appreciate, there is a difference between the two. The Government have ill-founded confidence in what they have said. That confidence tends to blot out any apprehension that they may have got things wrong.
	With North Sea oil diminishing, the Government are apparently content on dependence for three-quarters of the raw material needed for a generation from overseas sources a long way away through a pipeline that has not been built. It seems that scant attention has been paid to the inconvenience—I put it no higher than that—of being at the end of a line. This country's needs will necessarily come last, not only in the minds of producers but in the minds of all the consumers on the way.
	The Government seem to have made the almost endemic error of disregarding the possibility—perhaps I should have said "probability"—of the cost being seriously underestimated. I think that they have also disregarded the possible, or certain, interruptions that will result from disputes, accidents and terrorist activities. I find it very odd that the Government are consumed with the notion of terror and the activities of terrorists in many contexts but not at all in this one.
	The second limb of the Government's energy policy is their entertainment of high hopes in relation to renewables. They seem altogether to have overlooked the fact that wind is rather an irregular affair and that it will not be amenable to control by them. They seem to be blissfully confident that, because they come from natural sources, renewables will not cost too much. However, I believe I am right in saying that recent studies suggest that they have that wrong and that, in fact, it may be a very expensive business to bring electric power from the windmills which they are to erect. I believe that the Government have also neglected to recognise the increasing hostility to their proposals. People in the countryside, in particular, will come to dislike the prospect of their whole environment being populated by these awful windmills.
	I do not propose to elaborate at length on all the arguments which were repeated endlessly by very skilled people during the Committee stage of the Bill. Personally, I am very sorry—I never lose an opportunity to say this—that the Committee stage was banished to the appalling, toothless procedure in the Moses Room with no Divisions and no teeth at all but just an endless mass of talk with those involved getting nowhere.
	In the circumstances, I think it is amazing that we should be going in a reverse direction to that followed by almost every other country. In my view, in turning away from nuclear, which has provided a reliable base load over many years and creates no emissions, the Government are making a cardinal error. It has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, today and by many others throughout these debates that there are no emissions from nuclear power stations and therefore they lend a degree of much-needed credibility to the Government's Kyoto commitments.
	Perhaps the Government will cast their minds back to 1973 when the French realised that it was dangerous to rely to any very large extent on imported supplies. Rather than continue a dependence on Middle East oil, the French showed themselves to be decisive and determined. They then went nuclear in a big way. People talk about the long time taken to move into nuclear, but I think that the example of the French is forgotten. With a real will, in 12 years the French achieved 61 per cent nuclear generation, and that proportion has now risen to three-quarters.
	I appreciate that the Minister must be extremely pleased that this is the last chapter of debates, which have gone on almost endlessly. He must be bored to tears with repetition and he must feel like giving me a fairly chilly welcome today when I verge on repetition myself. I do not intend to go on for long but, having paid the noble Lord's patience—and, if I may say so, his good manners—a tribute, I want to say that his speech at Second Reading disappointed me profoundly. It had all the sound and atmosphere of a funeral oration, saying goodbye to our nuclear capacity.
	Of course, I accept that from time to time the Government come out with the glib saying that they are "keeping the nuclear option open", but I think that they use that as a means of protecting themselves against a charge of blind and pig-headed complacency. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am in any way wrong here, but—this is very sad—the Government seem to be totally silent on what they are doing to keep the nuclear option open. I should be very interested to know what thoughts they have on modern types of reactor. I should like to know what time or money they are spending on research into waste handling, which they rightly regard as a very serious problem. A third question is: to what extent are they concerned with the almost certain loss, if we continue in this way, of very valuable skills?
	At this stage, I cannot resist the temptation to quote the noble Lord's words, which, by now, I think have become quite familiar. He said:
	"One reason why the Government are not disposed to maintain a significant nuclear component over the long term is precisely because we have not worked out how to deal with long-term waste and do not have public confidence in our ability to do so".—[Official Report, 15/1/04; col. GC 164.]
	I hope that the noble Lord will at least be moved to produce some kind of palliative comment to remove the rather depressing impression that those words gave, honest as they were.
	In my view, it is no answer to say that an amendment such as this will not fit into the Bill. I have no particular regard for the Bill and, if the amendment made a bit of a mess of it, that would not bother me overmuch; nor would I be bothered too much by the argument that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority should not be given a duty which would involve it in making a mess when its primary duty will be clearing up a mess which has already been made. That is a two-edged argument. People who are familiar with the messes might be the best ones to limit the mess in the first place, as well as clearing it up afterwards. I just say that I am not particularly impressed by that argument.
	I go back, not particularly interestingly, into my own past. A very long time ago I was a junior Minister in what was then called the Ministry of Power. I regret that there is now no single department responsible for the very important matter of energy. I was rather confused that it should be shared between the two departments of the DTI and Defra. What bothers me is that this crucial subject is being lost sight of and is in danger of almost being forgotten in what I would describe as the "visionless sprawl of the Department of Trade and Industry". I have begun to suspect that the right honourable lady who presides over that ghastly heap has bidden her myrmidons under no circumstances to mention the word "nuclear" in her hearing—at least until after the general election, when it is possible that the facts may render the subject decent enough to be mentioned.
	I end simply by saying that I recognise that for the Government to say now that they will take a serious look at nuclear would involve another U-turn. However, such a U-turn would be most particularly welcomed and they would be congratulated—I would certainly be the first to do so—on their enlightenment. However, I suspect that that is too much to hope for.
	I make it quite clear that if by any chance I were to be successful in nudging the Government towards accepting the need for nuclear—and saying so now—I should be very pleased that I had made some progress with the amendment. But, if they do not, I shall wish to divide the House, even at the risk of defacing the beauty of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved with such skill by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who has been blessed with the gift of combining wisdom, wit and brevity in equal measure; something that is not always available in this House.
	It is a matter of very great disappointment to those of us on both sides of the House who support the nuclear industry that the White Paper, on which so much of this Bill is based, makes no more than token mention of nuclear power. To say that the future of nuclear power will not be ruled out is poor reward for an industry that presently provides approximately 25 per cent of our power generation, and which can justifiably claim to be among the cleanest of all generation methods.
	A wonderful opportunity has been missed to make a positive commitment to replace the nuclear power stations, which will be decommissioned over the next few years, with a proper new nuclear programme. While many other parts of the world are seizing the challenge, our Government, I am afraid, are fumbling and floundering and making unrealistic demands on the renewable energy industry, which is still in its infancy.
	Why is it that countries as far apart as China and Finland, and with needs as different as those of India and Eastern Europe, have been able to overcome the problems of waste disposal and to proceed with the construction of new reactors? My noble friend Lord Peyton made reference to that. I too wonder what the Government are doing in the way of research because building a nuclear reactor today is a very different exercise from 30 years ago. Things have moved on tremendously. I suggest that one of the first things that the Government should do is to set up a working group to study the types of reactors which are being used and are being built satisfactorily in other parts of the world. After all, most countries with nuclear reactors started off having reservations about them, but they have won the battle and are now building; before long they will leave us standing still.
	There are now more than 400 nuclear reactors in operation with a substantial number under construction or on drawing boards. A report by the Institution of Civil Engineers entitled State of the Nation 2003 predicted,
	"that by the year 2020 90 per cent of the gas needed to fuel British power stations would be imported".
	Ironically, that is also the year in which our last remaining nuclear power station will be decommissioned—that is, unless we come to our senses and rejuvenate our nuclear industry. Only 16 years ahead is not long when one takes into account the lead-in time for the building of a nuclear reactor. Many of us may not be around to experience the folly of our present policy, but we shall not be forgiven by our successors.
	We suffer from having had a wealth of riches in the energy field for so long—coal, oil, gas and hydro. The first three will soon be depleted altogether, and the gap they will leave behind is far beyond the capability of renewables alone.
	We should look across the Channel to France, as my noble friend pointed out. The benefit of its development of nuclear power is now there for everyone to see. Time has been on our side, but we are fast squandering it.
	So, for those and many other reasons, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. In doing so, I must emphasise that the amendment in no way condemns or criticises other forms of power generation. They will all be needed but none more so than nuclear power.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two in support of my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Gray, who, between them, have put a very powerful case for continuing nuclear development. I have lived within two miles of Chapelcross Magnox Power Station all its life. One can see the huge disappointment among its 400 highly skilled workforce that it is to be decommissioned. Everything is logical in this world. As my noble friend Lord Gray has indicated, power stations will be needed by the year 2020. Surely, it would be sensible to keep these licensed nuclear sites ready and prepared for the next generation. As my noble friend said, to build a modern nuclear power station is much easier than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.
	So, I believe that for that reason, and knowing that we will be short of power by 2020, it is foolish to go into reverse and to sit on the fence, as the Government are currently doing.
	My second point is that the Government grossly overestimate the progress that will be made with wind power. I have sheaves of correspondence and newspaper cuttings demonstrating mounting opposition to wind farms, some of them 400 feet high and with transmission lines running through much beautiful countryside. The population will not stand for the spoilage of much of our attractive countryside by those ghastly wind farms and transmission lines.
	I have another interesting cutting about Eskdalermuir Observatory, of which your Lordships have probably heard as the coldest and wettest place in Scotland. It is a seismographic observatory and it states that it does not want a wind farm within 50 miles, because it would upset its instruments. If we take out that area of the south of Scotland, that will remove an awful lot of projected wind farms immediately.
	So the Government want to think again about their reliance on wind farms to provide the power that we have lost through nuclear energy. When they have thought about it, they will realise that it would be foolhardy to throw away the immense expertise that we have in the design and operation of nuclear power just because the Government do not like nuclear power.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I would not want my noble friend to feel that support for the continuation of nuclear power exists only on one side of the House. I do not propose to speak for long, but simply to make it clear to him, as I have previously, that I am not in favour of one form of energy at the expense of another. I have nothing against all the plans for renewables—I wish them well and hope that they succeed. But I prefer to have a guarantee available, lest the optimism with which they are viewed proves ill-founded.
	One of the first responsibilities of a government towards their nation is to be able to fuel its economy. That means the provision of sufficient energy to meet the rising demands made on the system. Therefore, I support the broad view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we would be foolhardy indeed to get rid of any existing form of supply of energy unless and until we have guaranteed certainty of the alternatives. I do not propose to join the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the Division Lobby tonight, because that is not where the issue will be determined. The issue will be determined by having a clear and frank discussion on the future supply of energy.
	I am not sure that this is the appropriate place at which we can sort that out for all time. The noble Lord's amendment does nothing other than to send a clear signal to the Government about what needs to be done. There will be differences about the alternatives. I would not want to join in anything that appeared to be an attack on renewables, but I sound the warning to my noble friend that, when it comes to the guaranteed supply of energy, in my opinion, nuclear will continue to have a role until we have a proven and guaranteed alternative.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I shall be happy to join my noble friend Lord Peyton in the Lobby later because I agree with everything that he said, as well as with the comments of my noble friends Lord Gray and Lord Monro. I rise for only one purpose: to say how distressed I am at the Government's attitude to the whole matter of nuclear energy.
	Their approach is totally flabby, compared with what I remember of a previous Labour government many years ago. One of the bravest speeches that I ever heard in my life was in another place, when the late, lamented Lord Shore of Stepney, whom many of us miss very much in this House, made a speech proposing the establishment of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield. There was a great deal of opposition from his own party to that, but the government of the day took a brave and strong line, realising that something had to be done because the future—or part of the future—for energy resources lay in the nuclear option.
	Now we have a Government who appear to be hoping that the whole problem of energy resources will go away and that, when the decision finally has to be taken, as it will because it is inevitable, they will not be in office and will be able to sit and shout and oppose it. It is a sad reflection on the bravery of a previous Labour government that this Government are so utterly flabby in their approach.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, those of us who are convinced of the need to move fast on some new nuclear commissioning can take some comfort from the fact that during the course of this long process of discussion of the Bill in Committee, on Report and, now, on Third Reading, what one might call the intellectual case has gone from strength to strength despite all the arguments advanced against the proposition that we need to move quickly to consider commissioning new stations.
	The Government, having produced a White Paper only a year ago, are unable—so would be any Conservative, Liberal Democrat or any other government—to signal that in the Bill, as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggests. But, having talked to many people about the matter, the debate itself has been the occasion for a marked change in the public perception of our energy needs. The Kyoto factor is involved; the question of security of supply from the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia and so on is also involved. As has correctly been pointed out, an enormous number of wind turbines—15,000, I think—of 3 megawatts would be needed to replace the nuclear industry.
	I am sure that all of those speeches have been well noted across government and that it cannot be too long before there is a shift of policy by the Government. Along with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, I will not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the Division Lobby, for self-evident reasons, but the debate has marked a great step forward.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I consider the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to be of great importance. He has drawn attention to what was a major gap in the energy White Paper. We must resolve what we are going to do about the nuclear option. I also listened with great care to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. He referred to recent developments in new forms of nuclear generation and the need to assess those developments with care. We need to know whether that is being done. As I understand it, there are about four new processes either actually achieved or on the drawing board. We need to know how they stand up to existing processes and how they meet the various reservations that many people have about nuclear power generation.
	My one reservation about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is that it does not fit in very well with the Bill. I know that he did not regard that as a serious reason for not including it, but I should have thought that his message was clear. I hope that in his response, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take it seriously and tell us what the Government are doing to assess the various possibilities that now exist that did not previously exist for generating nuclear power, alongside all the other forms of energy generation. We could therefore make use of this interesting debate to obtain a firm statement from the Government about how they propose to develop their whole approach to nuclear power.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, mainly because every time that I do, I must declare the terrible interest that I have as having responsibility in British Nuclear Fuels. It has neither asked me to speak nor given me any brown envelopes, so I feel reasonably free to express my views.
	Broadly speaking, I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I hope that he does not push the matter to a vote, because that would defeat his own objective. Around the House, there is a view that nuclear power must re-enter the view of government. I do not wish to repeat what other noble Lords have said today and in Committee, but the Government's approach seems to lack any objective assessment of world energy needs in 20 or 25 years' time.
	Almost every day one reads in a newspaper of increasing demands across the globe. Russia is now in the enviable position of having to decide whether to build its pipeline to service Japan or to service China. My guess is that it will decide on China, because that is the best long-term bet. Pakistan has now decided that it requires another nuclear power station. Who is building it? The Chinese. We need a very objective, realistic assessment of world energy needs. I would not have thought that any government, certainly not the one that I support, would take any comfort from somebody in 10 or 20 years' time, or perhaps sooner, looking back and saying, "They may have saved us from nuclear energy, but at least they produced the blackout". There is a real risk of that happening and an even more serious risk if it applies to an increasingly competitive global industry.
	The challenge for all those who support that view is not so much to decide the matter today. I certainly do not support the view that it is cowardice on the part of the Government; that is a ridiculous observation. It is a challenge to both the Opposition and ourselves to ensure, if we can, that something sensible appears in our manifestos, because there will be no change before the next election and we have about 12 months to put that right.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in some difficulty in responding, for the simple reason that those who followed debates on the Bill over many hours on many days in Committee and on Report will know that we have spent hours on the issue. I have looked at the Hansard report of just one Committee sitting, when we discussed skills in the nuclear industry. My contribution at that stage was 15 minutes long—I make no apology, as it was Committee stage. The debate on just the narrow issue of how we preserve and intend to enhance nuclear skills lasted more than an hour. Yet today I am asked to respond on the whole question of the Government's nuclear energy policy.
	In moving his amendment with his customary skill and charm, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made a Freudian slip: he could not quite recall what NDA stood for. It stands for Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, not "commissioning" or "build". We do not need legislation in order to carry out a programme of build, if that is decided upon in government policy. The Bill creates an authority to deal with clean-up. That is what we have debated for weeks on end. I fail to understand how I can respond to a proposal involving the exact opposite of what we are doing.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Before he goes too far with the point that I have forgotten what those wretched initials stand for, I hope that he will allow for the effects of old age, which cause a lapse of memory every now and again. Perhaps the noble Lord will reach that state before very long.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I feel that I am already at that stage, so I am at one with him on that. I sought to make the more serious point that NDA stands for Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The Bill is about how we deal with nuclear clean-up. It is about the nuclear industry's past and the inheritance that we need to address now, as everybody recognises; hence the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
	However, Amendment No. 3 is about the possibilities of nuclear build. I recognise the points that noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment made on the crucial issue of nuclear power. Those speeches were well presented, and we recognise the nature of the problem. However, I ask noble Lords whether they propose that nuclear build and the solutions to the energy gap issues that they have identified should be the responsibility of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority—that is where the amendment would appear in the Bill. It seems to make an absolute travesty of our proposals. We pride ourselves on our legislative role, the amount of time that we are prepared to devote to legislation and the care that we take. Does anybody who supports the necessity to address the nuclear question in a different timescale from the one proposed by the Government, as do noble Lords in some parts of the House, think that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is the agency that should do it? That is what the amendment asks noble Lords to support.
	If, by some ridiculous mischance, noble Lords are tempted to go near the Lobby in support of the amendment in those terms, it cannot be the action of those who are concerned properly about our energy difficulties and the obvious necessity to meet the energy gap identified.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I hope that when the Minister refers to noble Lords being tempted to go through the Lobbies, he is not talking to any of his noble friends behind him. His noble friends expressed very clear sympathy with the arguments and the view that this was not the appropriate place with which to deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will not drive us into the arms of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which I never find particularly appealing—I could find much more appealing arms to get driven into—and will address perhaps the seriousness of the issue, with which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also dealt.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was not addressing my remarks to any particular part of the House. I merely sought to identify that the amendment made the odd interpretation that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, established in the framework of the Bill to deal with nuclear clean-up, should be the focus of nuclear build to meet an energy gap and future provision that we all recognise is of surpassing importance to this country. That is why we have spent many hours in Committee. Noble Lords on the Front Benches have made significant contributions to this debate. The fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has not participated today is in no way a reflection, as I understand it, of her lack of concern about the issues of energy provision in the future—very far from it. I presume that in fact she has not participated in this debate because this amendment is not an appropriate amendment to address itself to these issues.
	I could reiterate the arguments that we have had in Committee and on Report over all these issues, of the research positions that we are concerned about, of the questions of the research activity in which we participate, and of the issues that we have with regard to enhancement of skills in order to preserve the position for the nuclear future. I could enter into the debate of the whole issue of nuclear pricing and the relative costs of the nuclear industry at present. I have been invited to do exactly that, it seems to me, by the very nature and breadth of this debate. But there must come a time with a Bill, particularly at Third Reading, when we address ourselves to amendments that are realistic, and that give effect reasonably to what can be achieved in the Bill.
	I maintain that it is perfectly obvious that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is not the authority to carry the burden of the points that have been made on the general energy policy. I have no doubt that we shall return to these debates on many occasions in the future. If one thing is certain about your Lordships' House, it is that there are manifest opportunities for debates on every issue, and I have no doubt that energy will feature over the course of the next few months and years.
	I am merely making the point today that this amendment is grotesquely misplaced in asking the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be responsible for nuclear build. It is on those grounds that I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that he has had a good debate, and he has made his case about nuclear issues, but it would not be right to ask noble Lords to participate in the Lobbies on an amendment that is so ill-construed.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and before my noble friend comes back, I say to the Minister that he has slightly misjudged the occasion. The problem that we have had with this Bill throughout is that it is not a Bill about energy. The very issues that have been raised this afternoon can be addressed nowhere in the Bill, but we should be addressing them.
	Later on—I suspect by then many noble Lords will no longer be in the Chamber—I will again attempt to get something to cover the issue of protecting the environment, while allowing development to take place on wind farms. Again, I shall be told that it is not relevant, and it is not appropriate. But this Bill is a wasted opportunity. This Government have wasted it. No wonder my noble friend is valiantly trying to raise an issue that is of great concern to all Members.
	The noble Lord is well aware that we on the Front Bench—although I am sitting behind my noble friend on this occasion, I do not know if I feel freer or not; I do not think that I feel anything about it—feel that he has misjudged it. I found his response very disappointing—offensive is too strong a word.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness did catch me before I sat down, so I will respond. I regret that she thinks that my remarks were ill-judged to the occasion. I merely emphasised the obvious fact that we have been through all these issues. We have had debates at Second Reading, and we had endless debates in Committee. I just indicated one brief illustration of how lengthy our debates were in Committee. Noble Lords will recall that we had 13 days in Committee. We have had days on Report, and the issues have been articulated and aired there.
	There has not been a point that has been made today—though they have all been made effectively and ably by noble Lords—that has not been articulated in the context of the Bill prior to today. It is not my role at this point to respond to a general debate. This is not Second Reading; this is an amendment to a Bill asking the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be responsible, as I see it, for commissioning nuclear build—the exact opposite to the whole proposition of what the Bill stands for. It is on that basis that I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that he has had a fair run. Perhaps he will recognise that he could at this stage usefully withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if the noble Lord had taken that sort of note earlier on, he might well have persuaded me. I am afraid that he has not. I am very grateful to everyone, to all noble Lords except one, for taking part in this debate. My noble friends on this side of the House will, I am sure, forgive me, if I say that I am particularly grateful to the three noble Lords who took part from the other side of the House.
	I have always thought that it is particularly important in your Lordships' House that there should be some echo and some common ground between the parties. I am grateful to the three noble Lords who supported what I said, even though they do not accept my view that protests are usually louder if they are also expressed in the Lobbies. I am sure that our difference in that matter will not affect our relationship.
	I am conscious that since my noble friend on the Front Bench has been unhappily silent, it occurs to me that there might be a possibility of her being under some constraints that do not affect me at all. I will not specify them, but only the direction is sufficient for me.
	I should like to finish by saying that what the noble Lords, Lord Christopher, Lord Lea and Lord Tomlinson, said to me was an effective plea, which I hope they will believe really did shift me. On the other hand, the speech of their noble friend the Minister, which was really more of a lecture and a homily, telling me rather sharply that I had made a bad mistake in intruding on the niceties of his Bill, put me back sharply to where I was before. To say no more, I should like to take the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 121.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 11 [General duties when carrying out functions]:

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 9, line 23, at end insert ", including the desirability of optimising, through its employment arrangements and other NDA contracts, the social and economic life of the community and, during the period that it has responsibility under a direction under section 5 for securing the operation or decommissioning of any installation, of maintaining or enhancing so far as practicable the levels of support to that life that were made by the operator of the installation prior to the direction being made"

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I understand that we are debating Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 6. The two amendments are tabled in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I should tell noble Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to whom I spoke this morning, fully supports the amendments but is not with us because he has to attend to a serious family crisis. I am sure that the House sends good wishes to him and to his family.
	During the progress of this Bill, we have heard noble Lords speak from various parts of the House about the serious impact of plant closure and decommissioning on the social and economic well-being of local communities. I speak with particular feeling on this, having been for many years a Member in another place for a Cumbrian constituency close to Sellafield.
	Assurances have been sought that affected communities will receive the necessary support to restructure their economies and on the extent to which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a role in providing support to benefit the social and economic life of those affected areas. I remind noble Lords that Clause 9(1)(e) gives the NDA the function of,
	"giving encouragement and other support to activities that benefit the social and economic life of communities living near designated installations, designated sites or designated facilities or that produce other environmental benefits for such communities".
	Noble Lords will recall that at the Report stage the Government clarified that this was a supplemental role for the NDA. It had the function because it had a role in providing "some" support. Responding on behalf of the Government on 18 March, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, made it clear that the Government did not see the NDA as the right body to take responsibility for addressing the social and economic impact of decommissioning. That responsibility resided with local or regional bodies. My aim this evening is to demonstrate that that is the wrong approach.
	However, the noble Lord went on to explain (at col. 444 of Hansard) that the authority would have a role:
	"Nor does it mean that the NDA will have no role to play in this regard. It clearly has a contribution to make. Like any significant employer—such as BNFL before it—the NDA will play an active role in encouraging and supporting activities and initiatives that bring social and economic benefit to local communities".
	That is exactly our point. Further to this, the noble Lord went on to say:
	"Where the NDA is the employer and where it is involved in taking responsibility for action, of course we must look at the way in which we can use its resources to support and buttress the local economies as best we can".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. 446.]
	The amendment I now propose seeks to address and clarify in the legislation this important role, and to seek to turn the Government's fine words into positive action. Here I reflect the previous debate during which my noble friend Lord Peyton made exactly the same point about nuclear energy in seeking to turn the Government's fine words into positive action.
	I recall years ago the example of BNFL which, in Cumbria in particular, contributed significantly over a long period to the economy and social well-being of the locality through its employment practices and the funding it has committed to the support of local communities. Many people in the areas where BNFL operated remember with great warmth the hard work of the late Sir Christopher Harding, the chairman of BNFL, on these endeavours.
	The NDA will take over responsibility for decommissioning and clean-up and, with its substantial resources, will be a significant employer. It will have within its control the entering into large contracts for securing the decommissioning and clean-up work. Through those contracts there will be an opportunity to incentivise the successful operation of the contracts in terms of providing new employment opportunities, the commercialisation of technologies, encouraging local spend, and so forth. Opportunities will also arise for the NDA to release clean-up sites for development, thus helping to stimulate regeneration. Those are just some of the examples of how, during the course of its work, the NDA can benefit local communities. While seeking to secure value for money in its dealings, the NDA must have embedded in its culture the need to meet the social responsibilities that such major organisations should have.
	In the previous debate the Minister, when refusing to have the NDA bear responsibility for nuclear matters, made a particular point when he said that its role was "decommissioning and clean-up". I ask the noble Lord: can there be any more important part of clean-up after decommissioning than to try to clean up the ravages which the decommissioning has caused to local communities? I would have thought that that was an essential part of "clean-up".
	It is important to recognise that these measures to provide support can be carried out only by the NDA and not by development agencies. The incorporation of this amendment into legislation has two purposes. First, to help embed these values into the culture of the organisation in the way it operates in its dealings with others, it is important that these considerations are given proper weight in contractual negotiations. Secondly, to engender confidence in the NDA within the local communities affected by decommissioning that the support previously given by BNFL or other operators is maintained and enhanced. The support of local communities is crucial to the successful operation of the NDA.
	Finally on Amendment No. 4, I refer also to the duty of the NDA set out in Clause 11(1),
	"in carrying out its functions, to have particular regard to . . . Government policy".
	Through its activities the NDA can provide benefits to local communities which, as I have said, are within its remit alone. It clearly must be relevant to government policy that every opportunity is taken to increase the economic self-sufficiency of an area and to reduce dependence on the state.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage the Government were asked about the level of funding the NDA will feel it is appropriate to commit to supporting local communities. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, stated in reply that the NDA would have a total budget initially in the order of £2 billion. While it was indicated that there may be margins of discretion and judgment, it was made clear that there was limited provision for the support of local communities.
	I have to recognise that the Government have responded positively in setting up a strategic response task force at Dounreay and, more recently, a similar task force for west Cumbria. Those strategic task forces will prepare a long-term vision for those areas and oversee its implementation. While they welcome the setting-up of the task forces, local communities are concerned that the funding available to deliver the vision will not be forthcoming on the scale required or continue in the long term, as administrations and priorities change. Here we are back to the same problem of turning fine words into positive actions.
	I cannot underestimate the size of the challenge affecting those areas. They will suffer large losses in employment for which there is no readily available alternative employment. Attracting new businesses into those relatively remote areas will be especially difficult. In those areas, and possibly in others, there is a special case for support to address serious social and economic problems which, without concentrated action, will result from the job losses. For example, major infrastructure investment and considerable support to help the diversification of these economies will be necessary.
	It is recognised that the task force is a vehicle for getting access to spending from government departments, and that is welcome. However, there is no guarantee that sufficient funding will be forthcoming from government departments, or indeed from the Government through regional development agencies. Complementary to the establishment of the task force, a commitment is sought from the Government that the money will be forthcoming to deliver what the task forces agree is required.
	While the NDA will not be a primary regeneration body, the proposed amendment allows for funds to be provided in the NDA's funding to facilitate regeneration activities through the task forces; otherwise I would ask the Government how their commitment to address the problems will be seen in the long term to give the communities confidence to help to rebuild their local economies. Perhaps the Minister can advise the House how the Government may otherwise demonstrate that the funding will be guaranteed to deliver the outcomes agreed to be necessary by the task force. Clearly, the Government have a vested financial interest as well as a moral duty to secure economic recovery in those areas. Encouraging self-sufficiency of the areas will reduce the reliance on government spending in the long term on economic and social problems.
	Finally, what price can be put on the readiness of local people to co-operate in the future? The nuclear industry has not always been popular, but areas such as west Cumbria and Dounreay have stood by it loyally over the years. To ensure trust and co-operation, long-term and guaranteed commitment is absolutely essential. I beg to move.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. There is a social connotation to the work of the NDA. It reminds me of a problem that we had to face in the coal industry when I was directly involved in it. We started off by considering that it was our task to run the industry and that if we had to close pits for good and sufficient reason, the social implications would have to be borne by other agencies of government. However, we soon realised that that was an inadequate response. We had to set up our own body and with our knowledge of the localities involved we had to see whether we could find alternative employment for those who unfortunately were deprived of their livelihood through our actions, justified as they may have been.
	I have great sympathy with the amendment, and I believe that the NDA should have a wider social responsibility which spells out more clearly what is implied in the Bill. The amendment spells it out in a way that I consider to be wholly desirable. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Jopling and the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If, like me, one lives within sight of Chapelcross, one knows that such a closure after virtually 50 years' operation has a catastrophic impact on the local community. I know that that will equally be so in west Cumbria and at Sellafield, where I have often visited.
	I would like clarification from the Government about where we stand on support for the community. At Second Reading, I raised the issue with the Government. In response the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"I referred earlier specifically to west Cumbria, where there is a heavy dependence on the nuclear industry. However, that applies also to the north of Scotland and, as far as the noble Lord, Lord Monro, is concerned, to the economic area around Chapelcross".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. 920.]
	I want to know who will be responsible for funding that support. Will it be done through the task force or, in respect of Dounreay and Chapelcross and later our other nuclear stations in Scotland, is it to be done through the Scottish Executive? It is notoriously true that co-operation between the Government at Westminster and the Scottish Executive is pretty fragile and often non-existent. What the Government here say will happen just does not happen in relation to Scotland, or they use the Sewel rules which allow them to put through a motion in the Scottish Executive without it being fully debated. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can give the House an idea of how much support the community will receive from the NDA. Is it to be funded entirely from London, or will it be supported in Scotland by the Scottish Executive?
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is correct. In west Cumbria and in Dumfries, the nuclear industry has worked extremely well with the community—there is the very best of relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, they were fostered by the late Sir Christopher Harding most effectively. It would be tragic if the skilled workforce of 400-plus at Chapelcross were put out to grass with no jobs to go to. I know that there are bound to be jobs in the NDA and in the decommissioning procedure, but by and large the industry has been a source of employment for skilled people with university degrees, and such jobs have provided rare opportunities in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway.
	I hope that the Minister can give the House some encouragement and support for the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Jopling. It has been tabled with the very best of intentions to help areas of high unemployment when the plants are decommissioned. The support that is to be provided at Dounreay and to west Cumbria will substantially be available to the other power station areas as well.

Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I want to associate myself with what my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Monro have said. To some extent, decommissioning has already started at Dounreay. The cleaning-up has taken place and many people who were previously employed there have been re-employed, which is all to the good. I hope that the same will be achieved in other parts of the country. It is no surprise that those who have not experienced any of this yet are a little apprehensive about what may lie ahead.
	The amendment is a very good one. It spells out clearly what is expected. I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Monro said: the relationship between the present authority and the local communities in the various Scottish cases has been very good in every case, particularly at Dounreay, which is the one that I know best. The relationship there has been excellent and the progress made so far has been very encouraging indeed. I am not suggesting for one moment that these standards will not be continued, but it is essential that they are maintained and, where possible, even improved upon.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, covered the subject very adequately. I merely want to register my total support for what he said.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is unable for very serious reasons to be with us today. I know that my noble friend Lord Jenkin is sorry that he could not be here because he would have liked to have spoken in support of the amendment.
	I have listened very carefully to what has been said. The truth is that my noble friend Lord Jopling made a wonderful introduction and covered most of the points that could be covered. I would have to dig deep to find another reason to support the amendment because he has covered them all. I was very impressed with the point that he raised in relation to the reply given to the earlier amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He pointed out that the Minister made great play of the fact that the role of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency is first to decommission and then to clean up. Frankly, that says it all. It was the most attractive part, in a sense, of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which I felt was very unattractive in parts.
	I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Monro and Lord Gray for the way in which they referred to their local interests. Again, I cannot add to anything they have said. They covered the issue of local knowledge and they know what is going on. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about his experiences in the coal industry and how it had a duty to clean up and help the social fabric of an area when coal was no longer the predominant industry there.
	With those few remarks, we strongly support these two most important amendments.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jopling has fully explained the reasons for moving the amendment. I do not wish to repeat what he said—it was very clearly put—but perhaps I may ask one or two questions directly of the Minister.
	I spoke at Report stage on this issue, where the answer I received from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was that it would be the responsibility of the regional development agencies. What progress has been made, if any? Have the regional development agencies accepted this responsibility and what plans do they have to discharge it?
	I understand that the NDA has a limited provision of £2 billion, which it will obviously use for the whole of its work. How much of that, if any, does it anticipate setting aside to achieve the aims of my noble friend? Clearly there will not be a pot of money on which to draw at the last minute. I imagine that certain facilities will have to be made in advance; if so, what are those? My noble friend said that he is apprehensive that sufficient funding has been made available. Can the Minister clarify that point?
	At Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said:
	"I have not the slightest doubt that a great deal more needs to be done . . . But there we have an indication of work in progress with encouraging results. We will want to build on that experience as regards West Cumbria".
	Perhaps the Minister can share his thoughts with us because I certainly have not had any response—I do not know whether other noble Lords have—since that time.
	Later the Minister went on to say:
	"This is in the early stages preparation, but it will be in place before the NDA takes up its responsibilities for sites in April 2005".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. 445.]
	That is all well and good, but the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend seeks more than that. I hope that at this stage of the Bill—this is the last chance we have—the Minister will answer these direct questions.
	From the feed-back that I have received of the demands that are made on the RDAs, they may be apprehensive that they will be charged with doing something for which they do not have a specific allocation of funds. I urge the Minister, if he can, to reply to that point when he responds to my noble friend.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear from our earlier discussions that the Government are conscious of the kind of problems that have been outlined, particularly in relation to the west Cumbria area, where BNFL has historically played a major role, and in the other areas of the UK to which reference has been made, including Dounreay and elsewhere. BFNL has played a significant role in the community and has done so without even the statutory provisions already in the Bill, let alone the wider-sweeping changes to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Unlike BNFL and the UKAEA, the NDA will continue to have an active role in supporting and encouraging activities and initiatives, bringing forward social and economic benefits to the communities in which they have operated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was good enough to recognise that there are significant powers within the Bill for the NDA to do so. Clause 9 refers to giving encouragement to social and economic benefits to local communities. That is not an optional extra; it is clearly part of its powers. It refers also to environmental benefits—which are less evident in these amendments—under Clause 12, which was inserted during an earlier stage of the Bill. It has responsibilities and requirements in relation to the skilled workforce under Clause 11. As to the driving forward of the clean-up operations, there is a requirement under Clause 14 that this must contain proposals for supporting local communities, maintaining a skilled workforce and so on.
	The annual plan of the NDA will have to cover and report on these various areas. Certainly support for local communities will be a significant issue and will be subject to ministerial approval.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred, as did others, to the task force which has been set up in West Cumbria and the memorandum of understanding with the West Cumbrian authorities, led by the North West Development Agency. That agency is therefore a positive participant in this and the area is already a priority for the north-west regional strategy, bringing together regional stakeholders, public authorities and various companies, maximising the effect of the various relevant funding streams. Many millions of pounds have been made available through such measures.
	Given that background and given the commitment of the NDA and its predecessor bodies to the communities, I am not convinced that we need any further amendments along the lines of those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. There has been a significant partnership between the pre-existing organisations, the RDAs and the local authorities and there are very substantial powers within the Bill. But the way in which the amendments are phrased would take that significantly further and do not sit very well with the overall responsibilities of the NDA.
	For example, Amendment No. 4 links government policies with the NDA's contracting arrangements. It implies that the social and economic benefits locally are more important than any other policies the Government may have in respect of nuclear clean-up. That is not a sensible approach. Clearly it is one of many responsibilities, but the environmental outcome, the speed and efficiency of clean-up, the way in which we deal with the workforce and so on must all be part of those responsibilities. That is part of the contract and it is the responsibility of the NDA rather than the Government, as Amendment No. 4 suggests.
	I do not think the language of Amendment No. 4 is right either when it refers to the NDA having a responsibility to optimise the social and economic life of the community. I do not believe that, however dominant individual employers may be in an area, they can be given that kind of responsibility for the future of their communities. Indeed, in some ways, it would be very unhealthy for that to happen. That is why we have brought into the plan for west Cumbria and elsewhere not only a range of public authorities but also other private sector employers. I think that that is the right approach rather than placing a strategic obligation on the NDA, while recognising that the NDA will be a driving force and will provide resources to deliver those local benefits.
	Amendment No. 6 is even more seriously wrong. It suggests that the Secretary of State might withhold a grant to the NDA should it be considered that the NDA is not doing enough to support local communities. Let us think about the balance: the essential task of the NDA is nuclear clean-up—a very delicate and difficult task. The NDA is under certain obligations and has certain powers beyond those obligations to deal with local and social issues, but should a future government decide that the NDA was wanting in one particular respect in delivering that, is it really sensible that the government should deprive it of funds in order to carry out its core task? Amendment No. 6 would provide a very substantial and unnecessary power which the combination of the NDA with regional and local authorities to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits will not need in carrying out the kind of objectives which noble Lords have urged on us.
	The Bill as it stands provides significant obligations on the NDA to engage in that. The action of government in bringing what will be the NDA together with others to deliver support for those communities, together with the obligations in the Bill on the NDA, will deliver what people want.
	As for who will be involved, in England the RDA will be a major partner, as will local authorities and others. In Scotland, the major partners will be the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish local authorities, with the general guidance of the Scottish Executive. They have responsibility for regeneration in Scotland and will partner the NDA in this regard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monro, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked what moneys will be available. It is not possible to say how much money would come from the NDA in this regard when we do not know with which sites it will be dealing in a period of operation that will last for many decades. Contributions would come from other funding streams as well as from the NDA by a combination of measures, probably led by the public sector, but also levering in other private sector moneys to create a healthy economic and social base for those communities. Therefore, with regret, I do not think it is possible for me to respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Clearly, there will be a responsibility on the NDA to provide such resources as will be appropriate to the impact of its activities on particular communities over the years. It is not possible for me to say today how much money or what proportion of NDA funds will be available for that purpose.
	We all recognise the importance of the relationship between the NDA and the local communities in which it operates and is, in some cases, the dominant employer, directly or indirectly. However, I think the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has phrased his amendments goes too far. Amendment No. 6, in particular, provides a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Important though that nut is, such a provision would interfere with the central purpose of the NDA.
	I therefore hope that with the commitment from the Government and the existing commitment in the Bill on the NDA's role in this regard, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, that was rather a strange reply. The Minister spent a good deal of his speech, particularly the early part, endorsing a good deal of what I and a number of my noble friends had said, but he came, unaccountably, to a totally different conclusion from the one to which we came. From what I heard, he did not appear to address my basic question about why clean-up should not cover dealing with the problems that are left behind by decommissioning. Minds do not seem to have met, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 98.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 10, line 7, leave out "a devolved administration" and insert "by a devolved administration in relation to its territory"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Clause 11 of the Bill states:
	"It shall the duty of the NDA, in carrying out its functions, to have particular regard to each of the following—
	(a) relevant Government policy".
	If I can grace "relevant Government policy" with this, we are coming to what I call the gritty little parts of the Bill rather than the major issues of policy with which we have been dealing until now.
	Over the page in subsection (4), Clause 11 continues:
	"In this section 'relevant Government policy' means all current policies which—
	(a) relate to the decommissioning of nuclear installations, the cleaning-up of nuclear sites or other activities in relation to which the NDA has functions; and
	(b) have been published by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or a devolved administration, have been notified to the NDA by the Secretary of State or have been notified both to the NDA and to the Secretary of State by a devolved administration".
	No distinction is made, as far as the NDA is concerned, as to whether a policy is enunciated by the Secretary of State on behalf of the United Kingdom Government or indeed by one of the devolved authorities which simply have to notify their policy to the NDA and to the Secretary of State. It is then appropriate as a policy which the NDA has to follow.
	No distinction is made between national policies and relevant government policies made by a United Kingdom Government and policies made by any devolved authority, so there is inadvertently an extension of the devolution settlement made in both the Scotland and Wales Acts. My amendment would put that right by limiting the actions of the devolved administrations to only those policies applying in their own particular territories.
	This is important because when the Bill becomes an Act, we will have to deal with what is written in the Bill—not what we want it to mean or what we think it means, but what it actually says. It is not that I think that the Welsh Assembly will get particularly upset if some policy that it has enunciated for Wales is not applied in England—the same could apply to the Scottish Parliament. It is much more possible that somebody in England could think that a policy enunciated by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament is attractive and take the NDA to court because it is not applying relevant government policies as defined in the Bill because no distinction is made. That is a very real possibility and we have an obligation to remove it. We should not allow an extension of the devolution settlement to happen through inadvertence. That is the reason behind this amendment. I do not need to take any more time. I beg to move.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is an important clarification, which I am sure the Government could accept without further debate. That is my feeling.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that at first sight I believed that the amendment was sensible and would clarify the situation in the Bill, but I have taken further legal advice on the matter. The powers of the devolved administration are clearly defined in the devolution settlement. Therefore, one could not require a public authority to take note of a document produced by a devolved administration which went beyond those powers.
	If it was solely in the limited context of this Bill that we introduced the qualification that the noble Lord's amendment would provide, it might make sense. Because there is a whole range of legislation that refers to the powers and advice or consultation with the devolved administrations, all of which are presumed to be within the powers of the devolved administrations and not to breach the devolution settlement, we would muddy the waters if we wrote it into this legislation and not the other Acts. That is very strong legal advice so, despite my initial inclinations and despite encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I shall on this occasion stick with the advice and oppose the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that, in view of my explanation, he will withdraw it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister will hardly be surprised that I find his response unsatisfactory. It appears to imply that what we put in the Bill cannot affect previous legislation, but that cannot be so. The Government themselves have tabled Amendment No. 26, which deliberately sets out to amend previous legislation. At a quick scan of the Bill, there are 31 clauses that amend previous legislation. This is an instance of doing it through inadvertence.
	I am sorry that I have to take the time of the House on this, but we should not permit the extension of the devolutionary settlement through inadvertence. I am not entirely satisfied with the legal advice that the Minister has received. My view of legal advice when matters become technical is that one can get the opinion that one wants. I am not in the least surprised that the department's legal advisers have given the Minister the advice that they have; in a way, I should have been very surprised and disappointed if they had not. But that is the position that we are in: we have to secure the future.
	If we put the amendment into the Bill tonight, it will not be the end of the matter. The Bill has to go to the Commons and be considered there, and the matter will undoubtedly be further debated. The fact that something has not been done in other legislation because an assumption has been made does not mean that it should not be done when the matter has been pointed out, as it now has. On those grounds, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 99.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) In determining whether to make a grant to the NDA under section 24, and the amount of any such grant, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent to which in his opinion the NDA should make grants and loans under subsection (2)(c) for the purposes of mitigating any adverse effect of the decommissioning of designated facilities on the social and economic life of communities living near installations."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that the proceedings on Third Reading be now adjourned until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Illegal Immigration

Baroness Harris of Richmond: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report from the Select Committee on the European Union, Fighting illegal immigration: should carriers carry the burden? (5th Report, HL Paper 29), whether the draft directive requiring air and sea carriers to transmit data on all their passengers to border control authorities in advance of travel will contribute effectively to curbing illegal immigration without resulting in disproportionate costs for carriers and disruption for passengers.
	My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate this report, even though it comes at the 11th hour. At its meeting on 30 March, the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed a general approach to the draft directive. Indeed, the Home Office issued a press release immediately after the meeting, announcing that the measures had been agreed there. The pressure to reach an agreement has been intensified by the fact that the directive will fall unless it is approved by the end of this month. Nevertheless, the directive raises important issues on which the House should have an opportunity to register its views.
	The objective of the directive in its present form can be simply stated: it is to require airlines to transmit details of all their passengers to border control authorities in advance of travel. The version of the proposal that we considered in our inquiry was more extensive: it would have applied to sea as well as air carriers and would also have created a potential obligation on carriers to notify border control authorities of the non-use of return tickets. Although the scope of the proposal has been limited, its central element is essentially unchanged and so are the committee's objections to it.
	The proposal is not objectionable in principle. However, we need to be clear precisely what benefits the proposal might deliver and what it could not. Given the time constraints associated with check-in procedures, all that would be possible would be a computerised check against a database of names of people who are to be refused admission or who are "of interest" to the immigration or security authorities. I do not deny that it might be of value to be able to identify such passengers before they actually present themselves at immigration control, but the proposal's value in combating illegal immigration would be strictly limited. Such people, if not identified before boarding, should normally be picked up on arrival at immigration control. What the proposal would not do, contrary to the impression that the Home Office has given, is identify people with false documents, still less those who are likely to destroy their documents en route. If a person presents apparently satisfactory documents at check-in, he or she is unlikely to be identified as a potential immigration threat by a check against a nominal index.
	It is particularly important to understand that the proposal would be of only limited security value. In announcing that this measure had been agreed, the Minister prayed in aid
	"the heightened terrorist threat following the recent tragic event in Madrid, and the international nature of organised crime".
	The committee found no evidence of its effectiveness to combat organised crime or security threats. The requirement to transmit passenger data will not identify people who are threats to our security, unless their names are already on a warnings list and they are travelling on documents that identify them as such.
	What is needed is a careful calculation of the potential benefits of the scheme against all the costs. As I have indicated, while not negligible, the benefits are strictly limited and what of the costs? Here we have been kept almost totally in the dark, since no impact assessment has been undertaken for the proposal as a whole and the Government have only produced a regulatory impact assessment with their response to our report. I have to say that it is a very poor piece of work indeed and it throws very little light on the cost/benefit equation.
	What is needed is accurate quantification of the main cost components. First, there is the cost to the carriers. It would be impracticable to implement the scheme other than by means of a computerised check against a centralised warnings index. This means that every check-in desk in the world that processes flights to the EU will need the facility to scan the relevant data into the system, and transmit it for checking against the relevant database. I do not know how many check-in desks there are in the world, and I have no idea how much such a system would cost, but I hazard a guess that it would not be peanuts. This cost would fall on the airlines with no compensating benefits for them.
	Secondly, there is the cost and disruption to passengers. As your Lordships will all know from personal experience, the check-in procedure has to be conducted against very tight and inflexible deadlines. Even a small addition to the procedure is likely to have a significant cumulative effect. The Minister told us when she gave evidence—and this is repeated in the Government's response—that the Home Office was looking for a response time of six seconds per passenger; the airlines estimated that data collection would increase each check-in transaction time by between 40 and 60 seconds. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whose estimate you prefer. For large flights the effect of the procedure is likely to extend overall check-in times by a substantial amount, possibly hours rather than minutes. It is not difficult to envisage the additional delays to passengers and the consequent pressure on the check-in areas of airports, and the increased risk of missing flights and of flight delays.
	Thirdly, what happens if the check throws up a match with the database? The directive now provides for the check to take place,
	"by the end of check-in".
	Before it was "in advance of boarding". The Government want the procedure to operate so that someone who is identified as likely to be inadmissible in the destination country can be denied boarding. That would certainly make it a more powerful instrument, but is likely to give rise to additional difficulties. One can imagine the scene when someone is told, with no reason given other than that they have fallen foul of a remote computer, that they will not be allowed to board the flight; and the effect on the queue behind them. The one certainty in all this is that mistakes will be made, but there is no provision in the directive for any redress or compensation for passengers wrongly refused boarding. The Minister told us that the United Kingdom would provide a 24-hour helpline, but it seems unlikely that the person at the end of the phone will be in a position to give reasons for the denial of boarding. Perhaps the Minister can enlarge on this in her reply. I would add only that we are not alone in our reservations about this proposal. The European Parliament, when consulted about it, rejected it decisively.
	Finally, I must protest about the handling of this dossier. The regulatory impact assessment that has now been produced is a most unsatisfactory document, but even if it had been a much better product, what is the point of an assessment produced days before the directive is due to be adopted? Surely the whole purpose of this process is to inform the debate on whether the proposal should be adopted.
	When our report was published, I described the proposal as "half-baked". I wish that, in the light of the changes that have been made since then, I could withdraw that description, but I am afraid I cannot. Although some improvements have been made, the fundamental flaws that the committee identified in its report remain, and our concerns have not been allayed by the Government's response.
	This debate has the effect of clearing from scrutiny the document which is the subject of the report. Normally we would have associated with that document the later texts that have been submitted for scrutiny. On this occasion, however, we do not believe that we would be justified in clearing the latest version of the directive from scrutiny today. I believe that the Government have shown scant regard for the scrutiny process by signing up to a general approach, which they themselves describe as an "agreement", before that process has been completed. I see that the Minister's press release referred to the fact that the directive would be subject to parliamentary approval only in the notes for editors. The European Union Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the regulatory impact assessment or the latest draft of the directive, which was submitted only yesterday. We will examine this text in more detail at our meeting tomorrow, but I hope that the House will agree that, if the proposal is still subject to the objections that we have identified in previous versions, we should not clear it from scrutiny against our considered judgment simply on account of the deadline of the end of the month.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and through her would urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider their support for this measure. In our view it should be withdrawn and reintroduced by the Commission only after a full assessment of the implications for passengers and carriers.
	Finally, I understand that the Commission is planning to bring forward a draft directive in June on passenger data. That should be the vehicle for a measure of this kind and would allow proper scrutiny.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given to the House to debate a very important issue and, in doing so, congratulate wholeheartedly the committee on a most interesting report.
	Before going any further I have to declare an interest as a director of British Airways but I have received no briefing from it other than a copy of the evidence that it submitted to the committee which is printed in the report. Today I received an update of developments since the directive was first published, which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I am, of course, drawing on my experience with the airline but there is no special pleading from it in this case.
	I am not being in the slightest bit patronising but I wish to say that this report is a very good, informative and well researched document. As a short report it is a great deal more comprehensive than its size would seem to imply. I have experience of being on Select Committees where short reports are undertaken as "fillers" in between major inquiries. They are quite often rushed and thin on evidence. This is certainly not the case with this report, even though there was only one session of oral evidence.
	The written evidence is of a high standard and the conclusions drawn by the committee from the written evidence show a significant depth of understanding of the fundamental issues, and they are not easy. No wonder that the reports of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords are so highly regarded elsewhere, not least in Brussels.
	The most startling feature of the directive is the fact that it is limited to requiring carriers to co-operate with member states' border controls to assist national authorities to combat illegal immigration but nowhere is there any mention in the directive of the necessity to combat international crime nor to deal with threats to national security.
	However, in the evidence from the Minister, equal emphasis was placed on these last two issues as on the illegal immigration issue. This is yet another case of the UK Government not only apparently accepting the directive—which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, was issued by Brussels without any explanatory memorandum and completely without any, even tentative, analysis of probable cost—but also gold plating it to an extent which would engender massive costs and huge disruption to the flow of travellers, whether for business or leisure, between this country and the rest of the world. Is this sensible, just or even-handed? What about the competitive position of the United Kingdom?
	Why do we so often see the publication of a draft directive from the EU as an opportunity to preen ourselves as the "best boy on the block" and out-do the original perpetrators of the directives? In this particular example the committee pointed out rather trenchantly in paragraph 9:
	"The effectiveness of the proposal as a tool to combat organised crime or threats to national security has not been substantiated".
	Having just made that point about the committee's view, I think it quite remarkable that all 14 of the conclusions and recommendations contained in chapter 3 of the report are in effect negative. That surely must be a record for a report from the European Union Committee. I congratulate the committee on being so forceful in its analysis and conclusions, but is it not dreadful that a draft directive such as this should be so transparently lacking in any sense? It would be unworkable, discriminatory and disproportionate. It would impose huge costs on only one sector of the travelling public; namely, air passengers. Everything else is in the "all too difficult" basket. Would it have any chance of curbing illegal immigration? I fear not. I equally fear that the people who drew up the directive have no conception of how travellers behave; air rage would be the order of the day, every day.
	The noble Baroness described the check-in situation and the time that it would take to process the additional information. One little situation described in the evidence of Britannia Airways illustrates the unworkable nature of the proposals. Every individual on every intra-EU and in-bound flight from a non-EU destination will have to have their details taken at check-in to identify any third-country nationals on board. That would of course involve passport machine readers. Checking those documents on the readers could take up to a minute per passport, as we have been told. A Boeing 747–400 has a capacity of 359 passengers. I have been on four in the past five weeks that were full—good for the airline, but not great for the passengers who have to check in. To comply with the directive alone, not to mention the rest of checking in baggage, checking tickets and so on, would require six additional hours' check-in per flight. Need I say more? Please note that that is not BA evidence, but that of Britannia Airways.
	The most fascinating and worrying section of the report is the examination of the government witnesses, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the two officials of the Home Office. The responses to the questions show a poor understanding of the reality of 21st-century travel. Do they not realise that Heathrow alone handles nearly 50 million passengers a year? The Minister said that it was important to,
	"have access to passenger information . . . at check-in",
	relying on electronic response. In answer to question 37, the Minister was not exactly reassuring about the ability of the Government to commission a foolproof system—and can we truly have any confidence in any IT project handled by the Government now? Government involvement in complex IT systems has been a catalogue of disasters. Being told by the Minister in the same answer that,
	"we are all on a learning curve",
	does not fill me with confidence. How long and steep is the curve?
	The admission of gold-plating comes in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The answer was:
	"We are increasingly looking at it"—
	the directive—
	"in terms of border control, as being about immigration, Customs issues and policing issues".
	That involves other government departments as well as the Home Office. It is a nightmare scenario. Let us not forget that the hijackers of the four aircraft involved in the dreadful disaster and tragedy of 9/11 all had valid passports and visas.
	As the noble Baroness pointed out, no regulatory impact had been produced when the report was published. She tells us that one has just been produced, but unfortunately I have not seen it. That brings me to my real search for information on what has happened and is likely to happen with the directive. Doubtless we shall hear from the Minister about that. However, in advance of that, I inquired what BA's interpretation of the current situation was. Hot off the press today, it said:
	"At the time BA submitted evidence . . . to the House of Lords . . . the draft EU Council Directive on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger information included some onerous and difficult requirements. For example, passenger information included data that was not found in the machine-readable zone of the passport (place of birth); and data was required on passengers not departing the EU as ticketed.
	"Since then, the Council Directive has been modified and some requirements have been deleted. What remains is a requirement to collect and transmit passport information . . . which can be collected by passport reader, and fines of up to 5000 Euros for non-compliance.
	"The UK already has legislation in place that requires carriers to collect and transmit this data (UK Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000). To date, BA and few other carriers have been required to collect data specified in the Order. This is in part due to the assurances given by Home Office Minister Barbara Roche . . . in written answers on 6 April 2000",
	that showed some flexibility on the part of the Government. In the interests of time, I shall not read the whole Answers. BA continued:
	"Since then, BA has been working with the Immigration Service in support of their E-Borders initiative which includes a scheme to collect and transmit passenger information on flights to and from the UK called an Authority to Carry scheme. Permission to carry the passenger will be sought electronically from the Immigration Service whilst the passenger is at check-in".
	There are some benefits for the airlines in that, and BA will support its operation, but only,
	"on a limited number of routes.
	"The scheme envisaged in the EU Directive is different from the Authority to Carry scheme in that it requires the transmission of bulk passenger manifests upon flight departure with no benefit to the carrier".
	However, it is of huge cost to the carrier. BA said that it and other airlines had,
	"major objections to such a scheme for operational and cost reasons".
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, because I am sure that we all need to know more on the issue.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I ought to declare an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association. Secondly, I think that the sub-committee has done an excellent job. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who introduced the debate, was extremely generous in the way in which she opened her remarks. Happily, that generosity was not borne out by her speech.
	I regret to say that I see little in the Government's concept, in both theory and practice, which would commend the draft proposal to this House. The Minister has specifically stated that the measure as drafted has "serious and fundamental flaws". Despite that, the Government have opted in. They have ignored the sub-committee's views. In the final analysis, this debate is something of a charade in that, in all essential respects, the Government have made up their mind. They propose to bypass the sub-committee altogether.
	Illegal immigration is a serious issue, of course, but, at least between the time that the text of the proposal was first considered and 9 October—the date of the Minister's letter—it remained unaltered, with all its faults. That is hardly an indication that the EU at that time moved with lightning speed to address the matter.
	I share the apprehension voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and by British Airways, Britannia, Virgin, BARUK and the British Air Transport Association about the proposal. Regrettably, their concerns have not been adequately met by the Government. I hasten to add that I am deeply ashamed, as a loyal supporter of the Government, that that has been their response. The reason is that the Government have failed to understand that airlines are in the business of transporting passengers, rather than operating border control issues. That was the criticism voiced by BARUK.
	Will there be avoidable delays, so far as departing and arriving passengers are concerned? British Airways has stated that it fears that congestion at airports will inevitably follow. Is that correct? Is it also correct that aviation companies would have to bear extensive costs in installing new computerised passenger tracking systems? The views of both British Airways and Virgin are clear. They could be impolite, if that was the order of the day. They could have gone much further, but that would have been impolite. The proposals—not just this one—are half-baked, to echo the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris.
	There is no world-wide system that can electronically collect advanced passenger information. Similarly, not all passports are machine-readable. Therefore, if we are to attain 100 per cent accuracy, we shall be dependent on manual checking if we are to do something else. In practical terms, that means making sure that the proposal is considered globally. It is not impossible for global guidelines to be worked out, either by ICAO or IATA, and considered by the airlines and governments. After all, it is an important issue which should not be decided in five minutes, five hours or five days.
	The European Union has not shown undue haste regarding the issue. There is plenty of time for the views of the sub-committee to be further considered. Unfortunately, the Government have made up their mind. It is premature to introduce new systems—for example, European border initiatives—until there has been adequate consideration, consultation and implementation on a global basis of any new system.
	We should also consider how our existing provisions answer, or fail to answer, the most immediate threats. Is it also correct, as Virgin has alleged, that the cost of implementation of the type of proposals envisaged are to be borne by governments of many of the competitors of British airlines? It is appalling that some governments will support the idea and others will not. Our Government are among the latter.
	The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has also raised important questions. In the short time available to me I shall quote some of the matters that concern them. First, they say that the proposal contains,
	"no explanatory memorandum which sets out the background, the history and the justification for the measure".
	I would have thought that that was absolutely vital. In my experience, both as a Minister in both Houses, and here, as a Back-Bencher, I cannot recall a situation where such a position has been replicated. It is deplorable.
	Secondly, the ILPA says that the scrutiny of the proposal is hampered by the inability of the sub-committee to do anything about the bad drafting of the proposal. And that, it says, is,
	"irrespective of any problems of principle, unworkable"—
	I repeat: "unworkable"—
	"in their first drafts".
	It ought to know. The ILPA includes the people who, day by day, make sure that our immigration laws are applied. Its criticisms are not to be ignored. The ILPA makes many other critical observations—as do the airlines and my association.
	The Government ought to be much more prepared to be decisive regarding these issues, and it should not be too late to say so.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, this is an admirable report which I read with great interest and respect. I warmly agree with the committee's view that the UNHCR proposal for the transfer of responsibility for processing asylum claims to the EU is not practical, and I do not have much more faith in the UNHCR itself, judging by its performance in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa.
	It is essential to strengthen the support systems in the receiving countries—and that is, unfortunately, true of our country. Many of the law firms who advise asylum seekers in this country are both overworked and incompetent. I understand that the same inadequate resources apply to tribunals. I also feel that neither the UNHCR nor the EU can be expected to understand the broad range of problems faced by many countries. I support the committee's strong reservations about the proposals for directing asylum seekers to neighbouring countries—so-called regional protected areas or the "regional prong". They are countries which are themselves often poor and under-resourced—and are certainly without the means to care for refugees.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend most warmly on the magnificent speech with which she introduced this short debate. The criticisms she expressed have been echoed by all noble Lords who have spoken. Strong adjectives such as "unworkable" and "discriminatory" have been used to describe the measure, despite the fact that there has been a last-minute update of the instrument that has removed some of its worst features. Nevertheless, my noble friend identified some of the significant problems which remain and which she called "fundamental flaws". We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about the enormous difficulties it will create for airlines and for millions of passengers all over the world.
	We have also heard about the desperate haste with which the measure has been shoved through. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a practical reason why haste may be inadvisable. It is that the Americans are developing their own scheme which requires carriers operating to and from the United States to provide them with electronic access to passenger name records to the extent that they are collected and contained in the air carrier's automated reservation system—in their case within 15 minutes of a flight's departure. They have similar requirements for sea carriers, but they are being removed from this measure.
	In the Americans' case, the primary objective is to stop the entry into the US of potential terrorists, whereas we were told that for Europe the purpose is to combat illegal immigration. However, that has now been extended and the Government are talking about its use against potential terrorists, too.
	The PNR data elements required by the US customs and border protection comprise 34 different items, while the European directive calls for only nine. But two of the elements in the European set—the number and type of travel document used and the date of birth—are not in the US set because the Americans are dealing in another way with information on the passport. Ultimately, as passports become machine-readable, that will be a different kettle of fish. No doubt every bit of information from the ticket and the passport can be transmitted in one set. That is not what we are looking at here.
	The European directive, by combining some information on the passport with other information on the ticket, actually imposes greater burdens on carriers than the US PNR requirement, which deals solely with ticket information. The carriers have made it clear that while they accept the US requirements they are not at all happy about the directive. That has been evident from the speeches we have heard today, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who ought to know a great deal about the subject from her professional work.
	I also have heard from British Airways and from Virgin which object most strenuously to the proposals as they stand. I believe that following the debate we need extra time to consider how we are to meet the serious objections that they voice.
	We also heard that the European Parliament has rejected both sets of proposals and its Legal Affairs Committee has referred the "adequacy" of the EU/US draft agreement on the transfer of passenger data to the European Court of Justice.
	If the collection of information by carriers and the transmission of that information to particular authorities in the destination countries is justifiable in order to prevent terrorism and other types of crimes, including illegal migration, it would surely be best, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, to arrive at an international agreement on the extent of the information, the data protection standards to be applied to it, and practical questions such as the point at which the information has to be supplied, the liability of carriers and the rights of persons who may be prevented from travelling by incorrect or wrongly interpreted information. The Deputy Information Commissioner makes that point clearly in his letter to the chairman of the EU Select Committee of 12 March, when he writes that,
	"the Working Party believes there is a need for a global solution . . . in order to ensure a uniform approach allied with a harmonised set of suitable safeguards. The Commission strongly supports that view".
	Yet, despite that, we are being asked to endorse two different sets of proposals—one for the EU and one for the US—which are entirely incompatible with one another.
	As regards the directive, the "adequacy" decision under Article 25 of the Data Protection Directive was not submitted for scrutiny, as we have heard. In his letter to the chairman of the Select Committee dated 26 February, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, apologised for the Government's failure to identify that decision as being of such importance as to trigger the arrangements for scrutiny of comitology legislation. The Minister then went on to say that the timetable for approving the draft EU/US agreement on the transfer of PNR data was likely to be very tight and that he wanted its consideration by the Select Committee to be expedited. He has already instructed the UK member of the Article 31 Committee to support the draft adequacy decision without giving us the opportunity to scrutinise it.
	Of course, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that the UK should not put itself in a position where its commitment to combating terrorism is called into question, and we are not challenging the principle of using PNR data for that purpose. But we should not simply abandon our right and our duty to scrutinise the proposed legislation properly—not only but especially so where data protection is at issue, as it is in both these measures. I believe that that would be an extremely dangerous precedent for us to set and one that we would certainly live to regret.
	The US has limited data protection laws, which give no rights to non-US citizens and no redress for any damage they may suffer through the use of their personal data, which is to be transferred under the proposed EU/US agreement. This is the first occasion on which operators in the EU are to be made to transfer data—on a massive scale at that—to a public authority in a third country in a way that is not consistent with the Data Protection Directive. It is proposed to regularise this unusual proposal in two ways: first, via the undertakings by US Customs and Border Protection, for example, to disseminate the data only in certain specified circumstances and to certain "designated authorities" but without offering any remedy to a person whose data are used in a way that contravenes those undertakings; and, secondly, by means of the adequacy decision, which I have already mentioned and which allows carriers to transfer personal data and to make their computer systems available to the CBP to "pull" data without technically breaking domestic data protection legislation, whatever use is made of the data in the US.
	The worst feature of the rush to comply with both the US demands and those which come from the EU is that if our committee decided to hold the proposals under scrutiny, as we should do, we can be fairly certain that the Government would override the scrutiny reserve. If I am wrong about that, the Minister, in her reply, can correct me. But if she says nothing, this is a case where one of the most far-reaching proposals ever to come before the committee cannot be properly considered because of the exigencies of the timetable.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and her committee on their excellent report and, in particular, on the clear way in which their proposals and recommendations are set out in Chapter 3.
	It is fortuitous that this debate comes in the middle of the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. On the first day of Committee on 5 April, my noble friend Lady Anelay gave notice that, in the course of this debate, we would be pursuing in further detail the matter of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. A1. The report has rightly highlighted the concerns that carriers have, and I know that the concerns of the Regulatory Best Practice Group have been made known to the Minister. Indeed, those were highlighted by my noble friend Lady Anelay in Committee. What I have to say will therefore come as no surprise to the Minister. However, I hope that her replies to the points that I shall raise will satisfy us to the extent that it will not be necessary to return to this matter in any detail on Report.
	On the first day of Committee on 5 April, my noble friend Lady Anelay, as reported at cols. 1596–97 of Hansard, mentioned several points which were giving carriers concern. They included the unacceptably short notice given by the Government for consultation on the regulatory impact assessment, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, which fell well outside the Cabinet Office guidelines. The case made by the carriers for favourable treatment on the cost of equipment given to the fishing industry was another point. Admittedly, my noble friend's amendments were probing, but I have to say that the Minister's reply was not wholly encouraging.
	Since then, the Government have given a considered reply to points raised by the committee. However, the question of proportionality and associated costs remains uppermost in the minds of the carriers. We from these Benches support the broad concept of API and accept that some cost must fall on the carriers. We are also persuaded that the requirements must apply to both EU and non-EU citizens, but we note that the API requirements are to apply, certainly for the present, on flights originating only outside the EU. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion about this point. I should welcome clarification on it from the Minister because it appears to be specifically set out in the regulatory impact assessment report.
	I am not totally reassured by the confidence of the Minister in another place that there will be a minimum increase in delays in checking in. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has given telling figures. In addition, we share the concern of carriers that insufficient account has been taken of the huge disparity in the availability of technical facilities which API will demand. The major airports where such facilities exist will be well equipped to cope with these requirements. However, for the ones in less resourced countries from which statistically many of the immigrants can be expected to come, it will be a costly imposition in terms of both finance and good will. The carriers complain that 10 airports have been chosen to implement the first phase of the scheme and that the illegal industry will simply avoid those. I understand that the Government do not regard that as final, and I should welcome the Minister's assurance that this is a matter for further consideration.
	We note that Johannesburg has been chosen as the first airport to operate API. It is an airport with a very limited number of daily flights to the United Kingdom. How is API to stand up to airports with heavier traffic on the route to, for example, Bangkok, Lagos or Miami? I think that it is also true to say that the carriers feel the Government are not taking fully into account the commercial implications of the directive's requirements. The last-minute bookings trade, exemplified by lastminute.com for instance, is a huge marginal revenue earner for airlines. The business travel market is a major earner for the airlines and while admittedly alternatives for travel from outside the European Community will be limited, it cannot but have a negative effect on airlines' revenues.
	The RIA has been quite frank that it has not made a small business assessment. That is one of the deficiencies of this report, a point to which other noble Lords have drawn attention. It has not carried out this test, but this is another potential cost to industry, whether it is the passing on of costs by the airlines to small travel agents or the cost of business travel to small businesses, of which the Government must be aware.
	The Government remain vague about the cost implications of various technological alternatives to the photocopying of all identification documents on which there is total agreement that this is not workable. Caroline Flint in another place was optimistic about the solutions here, but the report specifically gives no cost estimate for what is option 3 in its document. I would welcome any flesh that the Minister can put on these good intentions—to mix a metaphor—if necessary by a letter to be placed in the Library.
	There are a number of points in Miss Flint's letter which address some of the committee's concerns. We are pleased with her assurance that the Government intend to remain fully involved with negotiations on the final form of the directive. However, I wrote this before the Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke. They have given an assurance that ample time will be given to the committee for final scrutiny. The Minister's letter to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who I am pleased to see in his place, states that the committee has requested that it be provided with ample time to scrutinise fully an EC/EU decision or international agreement in the field of API and that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the committee has adequate time for scrutiny in this area, given the importance of the subject and its implications. I can only refer noble Lords to what the noble Baroness said.
	I trust your Lordships will forgive me for taking advantage of this opportunity, which is too good to pass up, effectively to extend the debate on the asylum Bill. However, I cannot too strongly emphasise that, while the necessity for this legislation is appreciated by all parties, we are concerned that the Government are taking the airline industry for granted and are minded to load a disproportionate cost of this operation on to the airlines without making concessions which go some small way to alleviating the burden. If the Minister is able to address our concerns—if necessary by way of letter—we would hope to avoid the necessity of extensive amendments on Report.
	Perhaps I may once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and to congratulate her and her committee on their excellent report. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for raising the issue, which has important implications for carriers, passengers and border control authorities. I very much welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position with regard to the initiative.
	Perhaps I may straightaway express my disappointment that the efforts made by the Government to explain why we have taken this course have met with such a poor reception, not least to say to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that I am very disappointed indeed that he feels that the Government have failed to understand the business of the airline industry and that it is a participant with us in issues in relation to securing our borders.
	I hope that my comments will reassure my noble friend in particular but also the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the Government have a better understanding than they fear.
	Advance passenger information can, we believe, deliver significant benefits, not only in the fight against illegal immigration, particularly in the area of document and identity abuse and improving border controls, but also in the wider areas of law enforcement and countering terrorism.
	I certainly hear what was said about the events of 9/11, but those were peculiar offences. I know that noble Lords will agree that there are many cases of identity fraud across international borders that can be stopped by our taking appropriate measures. These measures will assist us greatly in that regard. The border agencies have been aware of those benefits for some time. The Immigration Service, Customs and Excise and the police already have passenger information gathering powers conferred by national legislation.
	We are satisfied that the passenger information requirements of the directive are largely consistent with our existing domestic legislation. For example, the information requirements of the directive broadly reflect the provisions of paragraph 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 as amended by Section 18 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000. Although the Government had concerns about some of the elements contained in the original proposal, we considered that the directive provided a realistic and timely opportunity to work with European colleagues to promote the development of a co-ordinated and harmonised approach to advance passenger information.
	Pending a determination by the Council Legal Service on the legal basis for the directive, the Government were obliged to decide whether to opt into the measure by 25 June 2003. We elected to do so because we had already been considering how to take forward our own implementation of API, for the reasons that I have already given, and, as a result, had developed a degree of expertise in this area which we believed could usefully be shared with our European partners. It was also on the understanding that we would have an opportunity during the working group discussions to shape the final text to reflect the United Kingdom's concerns. The Council Legal Service subsequently classified the measure as building upon Article 26 of the Schengen acquis, which essentially means that the United Kingdom is deemed to have automatically opted in under Article 5 of the Schengen protocol.
	Although we have supported the directive since its inception, we have always made clear that we consider it absolutely crucial that the use of data obtained under the directive should not be restricted to combating illegal immigration. The heightened terrorist threat following the tragic event in Madrid and the international nature of organised crime demonstrate how important it is that we get it right. It is vital that we use every resource at our disposal.
	We have negotiated hard in an attempt to produce a satisfactory final text to safeguard the United Kingdom's interests and to enhance the effectiveness of the proposal. We believe that the directive now provides the necessary flexibility to support processes that will maximise the benefits of advance passenger information.
	The directive provides a framework—I emphasise that it is a framework—to enable member states' authorities to develop obligations for carriers to provide passenger information. The Government recognise that the development costs are critical in establishing the necessary technological infrastructure to bridge the gap that currently exists. In developing advance passenger information processes that build on that framework, the Government will look to work with carriers rather than impose solutions without consultation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave a graphic example of where we are already doing that—I believe that we are doing so very sensitively, appropriately and to the satisfaction of all. Working together we have been able to develop very practical, workable solutions that have inured to the benefit of not only the industry but the aims of security and safety that we all wish to advance.
	There is significant scope for limiting costs through the development of a co-ordinated and harmonised approach. The UK is not alone in its recognition of the benefits of advance passenger information against a backdrop of rising passenger figures, resource constraints from any border control authorities and an escalating terrorist threat. An increasing number of countries have introduced, or are taking steps to introduce, systems based on advance passenger information. The Government consider that it is crucial that the United Kingdom be at the forefront of this movement, playing an active role in shaping the framework on which many of these systems will be based. This template will be set and, frankly, we would prefer it to be set with us than without us.
	We also recognise that there are significant data protection implications associated with this measure. The greatest of care will be taken in the processing of such data, with a view to correct and accurate usage to prevent such infringement. I know that is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been particularly concerned about. We will also seek to ensure that data is processed securely and protected from inappropriate access. In developing domestic procedures, the Government will seek legal confirmation on compliance with data protection principles.
	European Union Sub-Committee F raised a number of issues in its report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, referred to, which was published on 12 February. In our response, the Government provided evidence to substantiate that the directive is a proportionate, effective and necessary measure to combat not only legal migration, but terrorism and serious criminal activity. I am sorry that that response does not seem to have reassured the committee in the way that the Government hoped. I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise the implications for carriers and passengers, and we will seek to develop processes in consultation with relevant stakeholders to minimise these wherever possible. Significant amendments to the text have been negotiated, such as the removal of the requirements for carriers to notify authorities when passengers do not use their return tickets. I hope that the committee will join the Government in welcoming these amendments.
	The noble Baroness, in her powerful address in opening this debate, spoke about a number of the practical difficulties. I have already said that this is a framework. The directive does not expressly require member states' authorities to operate a board/do not board procedure. However, the Government intend to develop an authority to carry scheme, which will include a facility for passengers to be denied boarding, and we recognise the importance of providing a robust, timely avenue of redress. In view of that, the Government are developing a resolution mechanism, by which passengers may review decisions with the control authorities. It is anticipated that this mechanism would include a round-the-clock telephone inquiry line, which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has already mentioned, which would provide the means for immediate resolution wherever possible. Regulations will be laid before Parliament that detail the authority's carry scheme, and Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this in full, because the devil will be in the detail. We would hope to deal with the practical issues that a number of noble Lords have raised.
	The sequencing is therefore the framework, the API directive, the process, or processes, followed by implementation. For example, we have the Immigration Passenger Information Order 2000, for which an RIA was produced. We are seeking to introduce a requirement for all, or part, of the travel document to be copied, for which an RIA was produced. Both these processes would need to be compliant with the directive. Further processes will also need to be compliant. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that there is scope for us to address those issues.
	This debate will provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the committee, and to other noble Lords gathered this evening, the considerable importance that should be placed on these issues. We are running very fast out of time. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised a number of issues that I would be happy to deal with tonight. I am afraid that we do not have time. I hope that he will accept that I will write to him on all those matters.
	This has been a fascinating debate. Issues have been raised as to whether the impact on carriers is effective and fair. We argue that they are, and that they have been, properly dealt with. The costs to carriers will be taken into account. The Government hope that in what I have said today and in the details that we shall continue to give, noble Lords will feel, contrary to what has been said, that proportionality has been assured and that we shall be able to reassure the House that the scrutiny provisions are appropriate.
	If I had more time, I could explain precisely the process that was adopted in relation to the progress of the directive and why the scrutiny issue has been dealt with as it has. Time does not allow me to do that, but I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write in relation to all those matters.

Energy Bill [HL]

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
	Clause 82 [Additional functions of UKAEA]:

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 63, line 14, leave out "nuclear pension schemes" and insert—
	"(i) nuclear pension schemes; and
	(ii) such public service pension schemes as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection."

Lord Triesman: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 address the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on Report. His proposal was that the UKAEA's powers to administer pensions schemes should be widened beyond the extension already proposed by the Government to include not just nuclear pension schemes but public sector schemes in general.
	Given the expertise of the UKAEA's Thurso pensions office and subject to appropriate ministerial oversight, we saw considerable merit in his proposal. The Government have therefore tabled these two amendments for noble Lords' consideration. They extend the UKAEA's powers to administer pensions schemes to "public service pension schemes". The terminology used is consistent with the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993. It would cover, for example, the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
	Before being able to administer public service schemes, the UKAEA will need to secure ministerial consent. We will also need to ensure that UKAEA is structured so as to ensure that competition is run on a fair and equal basis. The amendments provide the necessary enabling powers for the UKAEA to enter this market. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we welcome this extension of the pension rights.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 63, line 26, at end insert "; and
	"public service pension scheme" means a public service pension scheme within the meaning of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48) (see section 1) or the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49) (see section 1)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 85 [Application of criminal law to renewable energy installations]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 65, line 13, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, these amendments return to a matter that we raised on Report about the scope of the criminal law.
	Under subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 85, liability may attach personally to the directors and the officers of companies for any criminal offence by their company, whatever its nature, committed on an offshore renewable energy installation or in a renewable safety zone. That applies even where there may be good policy reasons why directors and officers would not otherwise be personally liable.
	We support the application of the normal criminal law to renewable energy installations and the area around them and the liabilities of directors and officers that arise under that law. However, we know of no good reason either for creating the difference in approach between the onshore and offshore regimes or for widening the scope of the criminal law.
	In our view, the creation of differential criminal law regimes in this manner is inherently undesirable. We need only consider the potential clash between these provisions and any new offence of corporate killing—for example, where the Government propose not to attribute liability to directors—to see how problematic Clause 85, as drafted, really could be.
	After further consideration, we believe that the liability of directors and officers that would apply as if the offence in question had taken place within a part of the United Kingdom is adequately covered by Clause 85(1). On this basis, it seems sufficient simply to omit subsections (6) and (7).
	The second amendment serves to omit a definition of "director" that appears to have no function if our first amendment is accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I opposed an equivalent amendment tabled in Committee but, having reflected on the wisdom of the words of the noble Lord and his advocacy this evening, I am prepared to accept these amendments.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if only achieving success for every amendment were as simple as that. I thank the noble Lord most warmly for his reaction to our amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 65, leave out lines 33 and 34.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 11:
	After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
	"LICENCES FOR GENERATING STATIONS
	New licences for offshore wind farms shall not be granted until the Secretary of State has commissioned, received and approved a full report on the effects of offshore wind farms on radar, radio and other devices used by vessels for the purpose of navigation and been satisfied that these effects would not compromise safety or arrangements for search and rescue operations."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for the fact that, due to an unexplained breakdown in communications, his name does not also appear above the amendment. We have benefited greatly from his contributions to our earlier debates on these issues.
	This amendment and the two following it are all concerned with the effects and dangers of wind farms to shipping. When this matter first came to my attention at earlier stages, I was concerned about the way in which the interests of the shipping industry, but more particularly the safety aspects of wind farms in relation to shipping, had not been adequately considered.
	Since then the House has agreed to two amendments which will be important in helping to improve the situation, but it still seems extraordinary to have reached what is known as Round 2 of the allocation of wind farm sites. The Crown Estate has gone ahead with putting forward proposals for sites, some in the Thames Estuary, some outside the Greater Wash and some outside Liverpool, which have progressed to the extent that individual companies have been asked to submit more specific proposals. One would have thought that, in circumstances where the Government are proposing to authorise the establishment of offshore wind farms, the first question would have been, "Where are the shipping lanes?". They could then have sited the wind farms at an appropriate distance away from them. On the contrary, the approach adopted by the Government seems to have been to site the wind farms where it seems most beneficial and to expect shipping to go around them. This seems to me an extremely dangerous approach to the problem.
	That brings me specifically to the amendment before the House. One of the considerations which clearly ought to have been taken into account, but appears not to have been considered at all, is the effect that offshore wind farms may have on radio, radar and other devices used by vessels for the purposes of navigation. When we debated this matter at an earlier stage, the Minister made various suggestions, including that we should have discussions. I expressed my appreciation to him for arranging a meeting with him, together with some of his officials.
	I turn to the progress that we should make on what seems to be an important point. The effect of wind farms on radar and navigational arrangements is somewhat uncertain; they can affect radar transmissions both from shore to ship and from ship to shore. Even at this stage it is not entirely clear how such interference will take place. Clearly, the establishment of a whole row of turbine pillars is likely to have an effect. I do not believe that the generation of electricity by the turbines is likely to affect radar, although the Minister may care to express a view on that. More particularly, the danger appears to arise from the vanes of the turbines; they may not turn either because there is no wind or because there is too much wind. We are unaware of the effects that that will have on ships' radar. There are very real dangers.
	I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment in the terms in which it appears in the Marshalled List. It is an extremely reasonable amendment. However, the important point about it is that such studies should be carried out and we believe that the Secretary of State should commission them. In part the funding may come from the deposits that the Crown Estate has already collected from potential developers. My Treasury halo tends to emerge at this stage in the proceedings. More particularly, having reached this late stage in the process of round two proposals, it is essential that one does not go ahead with final consent until we are clear what effect wind farms will have on shipping. If one goes ahead without such clarification, particular licences may be granted to individual contractors and we may find that the dangers inherent in the effects of wind farms on navigation are greater than was believed.
	There is much anecdotal evidence to be found from other countries, particularly Denmark or Holland, which already have considerable experience of ships passing near to wind farms. I frequently fly over the approaches to Rotterdam and perhaps some experience can be gained there. One also needs to look at the more specific problems before reaching a final conclusion. I stress that it appears to me that we must get on with this matter. It is extraordinary that we have not already taken this point into account, given that the Ministry of Defence, for example in relation to aircraft, clearly is concerned about the issue.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier response, but we have come to the point where clarification is needed. We need to do something to reduce the concern that has been expressed about such dangers. It is true to say that the environmental lobby is increasingly schizophrenic on this issue. While we would all like to see more renewable energy of the type produced by wind farms—I am not against them in principle—there is a problem: if ships have to make diversions or have to queue outside the approaches to ports, additional greenhouse gases may be produced that otherwise would not have been emitted by the vessels.
	Against that balance, I see no evidence at all of the Government considering the balance between renewable energy generation and the increased pollution due to the diversion of ships. More particularly, there is a major danger of an environmental disaster in terms of a ship—perhaps a tanker—hitting such a set of obstacles with disastrous effect. Indeed, that might happen not only on one occasion but time and time again unless we are clear that the safety zones around them—and the location of them, in particular—are sufficient to ensure that ships are able to navigate safely past the wind farms.
	This is an important amendment. I hope very much that the Government will sympathetically accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I accept his apologies—I think we will blame the mistake on the Recess—but I did have my name down to the amendment at Report stage.
	I agree very much with what the noble Lord said. At Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, gave an assurance that he would look further into the matter of interference with marine communications, electronics, radar and so on. I believe that this has already been put in train and that the MCA is carrying out initial "in-field" studies in the vicinity of the North Hoyle wind farm off the north of Wales. The Government have called for consultation with the marine industry—I believe that comments have to be in by the end of next week—and so matters are moving ahead.
	One of the arguments that the Government may have against the amendment is that it may unduly delay the process of issuing licences. But if they are getting on with it as quickly as I take them to be, we can get round that problem. There is the added problem of looking into the materials that are used in the construction of the wind turbines. That may also be having an effect on radio communications. Furthermore, we have to look at the cumulative effect. This is important because the wind farms will be built seawards of existing wind farms and the possible very large cumulative effect could increase the risk to navigational aids.
	I fully support the amendment. The Government are aware of the problem and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the way in which he moved the amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his remarks. As they will recognise, there is not a great deal of difference between the Government's position and the one advocated so ably by both noble Lords.
	I gave an assurance at Report stage that the Government would carry out the study mentioned in the amendment, and we stand by that undertaking. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, emphasised, it is important that wind farms do not compromise safety by interfering to an unacceptable degree with ship communications systems. The point made in the amendment about search and rescue is of particular importance and well made. Time is often of the essence in search and rescue situations and communications systems obviously must be working to the highest standards in such circumstances.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, indicated, it is important that the Government should draw on international experience. We shall look at Denmark and, as the noble Lord suggested with great emphasis, the Netherlands, both countries having substantial numbers of wind farms in coastal areas. We can also use the offshore wind farm at North Hoyle as a test facility to provide an input into the study.
	We see the study as a priority. Where it will go from the initial information-gathering phases is difficult to predict. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the effect of a wind farm on ships' communications systems will certainly be one of the issues which will need to be addressed when the developers of the round two offshore wind farm projects submit their applications for consent as part of the process of considering the impact on marine safety.
	I want to give the noble Lord a further assurance that the Government will take into account all costs and benefits with regard to the proposal, so his point about the extra pollution caused by ships having to navigate around wind farms will be taken into account at that stage. That is a point properly made.
	We have repeatedly made it clear that consent will not be granted when a wind farm presents a danger to navigation. We do not expect that the first applications for consent will be submitted until some months from now. That gives us a window in which to complete the study and to consider the outcome.
	I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will recognise that he has made his point. We accept the necessity for the study. We have time to do it, we will draw on international experience, and we will take into account all the factors that he and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, brought to our attention. If I were pressed on the amendment, I could elaborate about technical difficulties. However, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I are so close in empathy about what should be achieved with regard to action on the round two submissions that I hope he will recognise that I have moved as far as I can without directly accepting the amendment. On that basis, I hope that he will feel that he can take these assurances and will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that he cannot simply accept the amendment; I think it would be helpful to have it in the Bill. He has given no reason why he is unable to do so. It is therefore rather tempting to press the amendment to a Division and get it in the Bill, so that we know where we stand. However, I served my apprenticeship in another place under the late Iain Macleod who, in the face of assurances of the kind which the noble Lord has given this evening, said that it was not the policy of the Opposition to shoot Santa Claus. That probably applies in this case. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 93 [Consents for generating stations offshore]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 71, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 36(1) of the 1989 Act (consent required for the construction etc. of generating stations) at the end of subsection (1) insert "and such consent shall only be given in relation to offshore wind farms after full consultation with representative bodies of marine users"."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the amendment would provide that consent required for the construction and so on of generating stations shall be given in relation to offshore wind farms only after full consultation with representative bodies of marine users.
	One reason why I have been so alarmed at the way in which these matters have been dealt with hitherto is the extraordinary way in which the Crown Estate in particular and other government departments seem to have pressed ahead in the way I described earlier without consulting the various shipping industries, Trinity House, port authorities, and so on. We are now at a very late stage—we are already through round one of the consultations and there seems to have been remarkably little involvement with interests that might be concerned with safety and navigation. Those sites have actually been given permission, with all the problems to which I referred, particularly the question of whether the ships have to go round the wind farms rather than the wind farms being put out of the way of the ships. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others drew attention at an earlier stage to the very real dangers that could result if those interests were not taken fully into account.
	There is also the problem, which has been mentioned in earlier debates, of our international obligations. I find the present ministerial structure overall somewhat puzzling. However, I almost wonder whether one should not appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Prescott, on these issues, considering his long-standing interest in shipping matters. But we really must ensure that these various interests are fully consulted before any further consents are given. I stress the word "consents", because we have already reached the stage at which a diagram has been published by the Crown Estate showing that it has allocated particular sites to particular contractors. However, within those sites there is still the question of the environmental aspects being taken into account and an environmental impact assessment eventually being made.
	One thing that has concerned the outside interests is that they have previously not been given full information about what is happening on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, between the Crown Estate on one side and those responsible for the proposals for the development of a particular site on the other. Safety must come first as far as that is concerned. If there are specific proposals, the outside shipping interests should be consulted ahead of any final decision being made. I hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory reply and assure us that all these problems will be dealt with in future even though unfortunately—and alarmingly in some ways—they have not been dealt with previously. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the matter of consulting fishermen's interests. During the recess, I was talking to a gentleman connected with the fishing industry. He remarked that, as far as he knew, the Government had not conducted any formal consultations with the fishing industry, which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would require. Perhaps this is the time for that consultation to take place, but it would be reassuring to know that the Government were required to carry it out.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I support the thrust behind the amendment, but I am bound to say that, as a result of what has already transpired at earlier stages of the Bill, the message has probably got through. There will certainly be much wider consultation with the marine industry for future rounds.
	When one looks at the proposed sites for round 2, it is obvious that efforts have been made to try to position these offshore wind farms where they will not have too much effect on shipping. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, there are one or two glaring examples where they have been plonked in almost the worst possible place, where they could not affect shipping more—one in the Thames estuary and one off the Humber. Therefore there must be consultation with the interested marine parties before any licence to develop a site is given.
	I take comfort from the fact that the Transport Select Committee in another place is due to examine the whole business of offshore wind farms on Wednesday next week, so further focus will be put on this matter. I support the thrust behind the amendment, but I feel that we have already stirred up enough interest in the subject for the amendment not to be necessary.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is right. Issues have been raised with sufficient force for the amendment not to be necessary. However, I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who moved the amendment and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that all maritime interests will be taken into account. I very much agree that it is vitally important that there is full consultation with the representative bodies of marine users, including fishermen, before a decision is made to grant an application for a Section 36 consent. Best practice dictates that such consultation takes place and that is what happens in practice. I see no real need to formalise that process in legislation. I will try to illustrate how we are consulting. All applications for Section 36 consent for offshore wind farms must be accompanied by an environmental statement. The Secretary of State cannot grant a Section 36 consent unless the applicant has provided an environmental statement that meets the content requirement set out in regulation. The statement must include an assessment of the likely impact of the development on the environment, including direct and any indirect effects.
	The aspects of the environment that must be taken into account are wide-ranging and cover not only the impact on the marine environment itself but users of the sea, such as the fishing community, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred, recreational sailors, whose interests the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has at heart, and commercial shipping, which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has always emphasised in his contributions to amendments tabled in the past.
	A proper assessment of the impact of the proposal requires thorough consultation with all stakeholders with an interest. Developers who do not consult properly run the risk that when it is made the application will be rejected by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers as inadequate, or that stakeholders will lodge objections to the project. The developers who have been granted site options by the Crown Estate for the second round of offshore wind farms are at the beginning of the process of gathering information for their environmental assessments and preparing their environmental statements.
	The department held a preliminary workshop on 12 March to bring together the developers with key government advisers. When a developer applies for consent under Section 36, he must publish notice of the application in local and national newspapers as well as in the London Gazette or, in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette. That process formally alerts all interested parties to the application.
	It is therefore not necessary to formalise a requirement for consultation because all interested parties will be given an opportunity to make their views known to the Secretary of State or to Scottish Ministers before they take any decision on such proposals. It is clearly in the interests of the developer to undertake such consultations with marine users. Those who do not run the risk that their application may be rejected by Ministers on the basis of a failure to consult relevant interested parties, or may find that formal objections are made to the project.
	The amendment focuses on consultation with representative bodies of marine users alone. I understand the proper concerns that the noble Lord has voiced on shipping matters, but the amendment could cause some confusion by giving the impression that consultation is required with marine users but not with other stakeholders. For example, a large number of environment groups have a clear and obvious interest in offshore wind farms.
	I hope that I have indicated to noble Lords that we take consultation very seriously. The amendment is more limited than perhaps might be warranted by the number of stakeholders who have an interest in this matter. We intend that all stakeholders should play their part as appropriate in any application. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have given him the assurances that he required.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I believe that I heard the Minister say clearly that consultation happens in practice now. However, my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said that the fishermen had not been consulted. I wonder whether the Minister's remarks were relevant to the first wave or the second wave. If one of the major organisations feels that it is not being consulted, that cannot be happening in practice. If the Minister could give us an example, I would be grateful.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is of course the case that we are in the early stage. I can give the assurance that fishermen's interests are taken into account. In fact, they have been present at meetings with the DTI on the whole structure. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, may have met a group of fishermen who have not yet been party to the discussions. It will obviously take some time for the issues to percolate down, particularly with regard to wind farms in particular areas of the country. I seek to indicate, in my admittedly rather general reply, that all those interests are being consulted, and we expect them to be consulted. We cannot conceive of the submission of any application that does not give evidence of the fact that stakeholders have been consulted.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, hit the nail on the head. The reality of the situation is that there was not adequate consultation, as far as one can establish, during round 1. It is really only since these matters have arisen on this Bill that there has been a more positive and active response by the Government regarding consultation. I think that noble Lords should be pleased that they have fulfilled a useful function in that respect.
	I understand the point that the Minister made about the narrowness of the amendment. Clearly, it is important that all interested parties should be involved. I hope that environmental groups will take an active interest in the risk of a major environmental disaster compared with what one must say is a somewhat marginal benefit as far as concerns wind farms, given the problems of ship diversion and so on. I hope that they will take that point fully into account and make suitable representations.
	I am still somewhat worried about the actual structure. Perhaps the Transport Select Committee in another place might look into this matter. The environmental statement is made by the developer, who clearly has an interest in producing a favourable environmental statement. That is why it is so important that other interests should be considered at an early stage. These interests—shipping, environment and so on—should be very clearly aware of what specific proposal is being made before the Minister considers whether it is appropriate.
	The other point that I think is very important is that probably about half of the proposals in round 2 are in areas where a significant number of shipping movements take place and where the location of offshore wind farms could infringe Article 60 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We have not really stressed this point, other than to express concern about the extent to which the Government may be in conflict with their treaty obligations regarding international shipping. In that context, it is important that, in addition to the consultations that we have already discussed, and, as the Minister said, taking as widespread a view as possible, they should also be in touch with the International Maritime Organization, which is conveniently located within walking distance down the road. Its interest should be taken into account.
	I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division. I hope that as a result of the debates that we have had on the Bill the Government are now aware that they were failing to consult adequately. We must express the hope that they will consult adequately in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 71, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) After the passing of this Act, consents for generating stations offshore shall not be given to applications made under the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c. 42)."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is a much more technical amendment and it is concerned with the way in which applications are made. As I understand it, it is possible for applications to be made under either the Transport and Works Act 1992 or the Coast Protection Act 1949. I also understand that under round 1 at least half of the farms in territorial waters have been given approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992, even though this tends to be a more expensive way of making an application than if it is done under the Coast Protection Act 1949.
	The Transport and Works Act expressly excludes the requirement to obtain consents under the Coast Protection Act. However, unlike the CPA, it does not address dangers to navigation or safety of navigation. Instead, it allows the extinction of public rights of navigation where proposed installations interfere with those rights and could give rise to actions for nuisance.
	Consequently, under the TWA, there is no statutory requirement for wind farms causing a danger to navigation to be addressed. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be asked to assess draft TWA orders from the safety of navigation perspective and the relevant General Lighthouse Authority may also be involved. However, there is no specific provision that is part of the legal process for giving consent. Therefore, if the Transport and Works Act is used, the important safety issues involved may not be taken into account and, indeed, are effectively avoided.
	The absence of a statutory requirement in the TWA route is a serious weakness in the legislative machinery. Many of the possible sites may be in territorial waters. We therefore believe that it is important that future applications should be made under the Coast Protection Act rather than under the Transport and Works Act. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that that is the case. In our view it is obviously wrong that it should be possible not to take into account fully the aspects that involve the safety of navigation. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I invited the Minister to respond to the matter on Report and he wisely declined that offer. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made an important point. There is no doubt that the Transport and Works Act is not subject to the same checks and balances as the Coast Protection Act in this regard. There is a definite lacuna in respect of there being no requirement to address the problems of offshore wind farms causing a hazard to navigation and therefore affecting safety. I very much support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I wish to give assurances to both noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, but I also want to express a very powerful argument regarding why we cannot under any circumstances accept the amendment.
	I begin with the assurances. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, drew attention to the fact that I did not fully respond to these issues on a previous occasion. They are technical and I am not sure that I was fully equipped on that occasion to respond to the matter that he addressed. I am rather better equipped to do so today but nevertheless I am inevitably stuck with having to at least attempt to match the technical expertise that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has shown.
	I believe that a misunderstanding of how navigational safety matters are taken into account under this legislation underpins the amendment. The DTI seeks the views of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on all applications for a Transport and Works Act order that are made to the Secretary of State. The MCA has been consulted on all the offshore wind farm projects for which TWA orders have been granted so far. The MCA has not maintained an objection to any of those projects. Where the MCA gives its approval subject to certain conditions, such conditions would be taken into account in the TWA order and would be legally binding on the developer and enforceable in the same way as other provisions of the order. I can therefore give the categorical assurance that maritime safety is treated equally seriously whether the developer of an offshore wind farm seeks a TWA order or consent under the Electricity Act and Coast Protection Act. The same degree of concern about the maritime environment applies.
	There is a further reason why the amendment would not be acceptable to us.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, my understanding is that the MCA involvement is not legally part of the consent regime under the TWA. The Minister seems to be contradicting that. One or other of us has been wrongly advised. Is he absolutely sure of what he says—that the MCA has the legal right to exercise a veto?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have indicated that the MCA has played its part on all approvals, and that the conditions that it imposes would then be taken into account. They would be legally binding on the developer and enforceable in the same way as the provisions of the order. I am in some difficulty if the noble Lord contends that his understanding of the law is different from mine. I cite it as accurately as I can; I warned the House that we were entering the deep waters of technicality on the amendment.
	Let me put the other point to the noble Lord. I am sure that he will take it as seriously as I do, although I might have rather more atavistic reasons for doing so. His amendment would disapply the TWA and, as he will probably recall from an earlier debate, leave the Welsh Assembly Government in a very difficult position. The Assembly Government do not have powers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, but are responsible for TWA orders for offshore wind farms in Welsh territorial waters. If we disapplied the TWA, as the amendment suggests, the Welsh Assembly Government would have no role in the consent process for offshore wind farms.
	I am sure that the noble Lord would not want that to be thrust on the good people of Wales, who have legitimate concerns about the issues as well. At present, the TWA is their only power of defence on the matter. For that reason, I hope that he will accept my assurance on the need to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, can Wales not use the Coast Protection Act 1949?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I understand the position, that is not as effective as the TWA. The TWA is the most effective measure, and the one that Wales has used to safeguard its interests. We have been discussing the TWA in relation to the operation of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in consultations on all matters that have taken place thus far on wind farm proposals.
	I recognise the difficulty that the noble Lord and I have if we are not totally agreed on the law at present. Obviously, I can stand only on the basis of the expertise available to the Government, and the practice that we have followed in phase one of the consents applied. The amendment would certainly leave our Welsh colleagues in real difficulty with regard to control of the situation.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as has been said—if the House will forgive the analogy—we are in pretty deep waters. My understanding is that the Scottish position is protected. There is alternative legislation in the form of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Act 2003. I am deficient in advice on the situation in Wales. While I would not regard that as an overwhelming problem, as it could be put right, if necessary, on Report, we are left with a situation where we appear to have conflicting legal views on the issue. On these occasions I look hopefully in the direction of the Box—although I am not sure that I should talk about the people in it as they do not exist in terms of the House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it might just be possible for once, that the Box has complete confidence in the Minister.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not even have a box. The Minister has been forthcoming all evening. My initial inclination was to press the amendment to a Division, but that would be difficult when there are conflicting views. We need to be clear, with the good will of the Minister, that if, by chance, he turns out to be wrong and I am right, then it is vital that this matter is raised in another place, the situation clearly explained and the matter resolved.
	Obviously, we do not wish to have consents given without the legal position being clear with regard to essential navigational safety considerations or the risk of environmental disaster not being fully taken into account. I hope that all future applications are made in the manner that I have advocated, rather than a roundabout route that presents problems. So, relying on the Minister's good faith that this matter will be clarified—and, no doubt, he will write to us in detail—I shall not press the amendment, although I am tempted to do so. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 95 [Safety zones around renewable energy installations]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 73, line 35, leave out "(b)" and insert "a safety zone"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 51. They are drafting amendments relating to safety zones. They do not alter the meaning of the provisions but merely serve to make the text clearer. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 106 [Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 3]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 82, line 26, leave out "a renewable energy" and insert "an"

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 16, are technical and set out the definitions of the various clauses. They amend the references to simplify the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree that these are simple changes, but can the Minister assure us that an installation will, for the purposes of the Bill, cover renewable energy installations as well as other energy installations? If he could do so, I would welcome the amendments.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. The references are contained within the provisions, where the terms "construction" and "decommission" are also used. So, it is not necessary to double-up on the definitions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 82, line 35, leave out "a renewable energy" and insert "an"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 17:
	After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
	"MERGER OF RENEWABLES PAYMENTS FUNDS
	In section 32C of the 1989 Act (payment as alternative to complying with order under section 32), after subsection (3) insert—
	"( ) The system of allocation must pool the sums received in respect of supply in all parts of Great Britain and may not distinguish between evidence presented under section 32(3) (obligation in connection with electricity from renewable sources) in relation to England and Wales and such evidence presented in relation to Scotland.""

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the amendment is intended to require the Secretary of State to pool the renewables buy-out funds in England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other. Figures recently published by Ofgem have shown that the current system is open to manipulation through the creation and subsequent gaming of material differences in the value of renewable obligation certificates—or ROCs—between the different buy-out funds. For example, a supplier with a large market share in Scotland has been able to under-present ROCs in Scotland, thus inflating the value of the remaining ROCs presented there, and then to use the ROCs that he did not present in Scotland to secure extra revenue by presenting them in England and Wales.
	Such a practice constitutes an unfair distortion of trade between industry participants. It also creates unnecessary volatility in the ROC market to the detriment of the achievement of the Government's renewable objectives. Merging the funds is clearly the appropriate way to prevent these difficulties. It can be done without any detriment to consumers and would be a demonstration of the Government's commitment to secure the integrity of the renewables market. It is also something which needs to be addressed urgently, as the failure to correct the problem continues to distort the market.
	We know that evidence of the manipulation which I mentioned has been given to government officials. They are aware of the problem. It is therefore time for action to deal with a real problem. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness moved the amendment and also the concern that lies behind it: the prevention of any possible gaming by a dominant supplier in one market. That would be fulfilling its obligation in one country by using ROCs while meeting the other, in which it commercially dominant, mainly through paying the buy-out. If that were to happen, such a supplier would reduce the amount of buy-out recycled to its competitors in the market where it complied using mainly ROCs while maximising the amount of buy-out fund available for recycling in the other market. It will be recognised that this is a serious matter. I assure the House that we are keeping a close eye on it. Indeed, we recently received a representation on just this point, and we shall be examining the need for action with Ofgem.
	I would emphasise that the issue of a pooled buy-out fund for Great Britain is a key one for the forthcoming review of the renewables obligation. But before decisions can be taken, we need to consider the effect on consumers in the constituent parts of Great Britain, how great these effects would be and how to encompass the new renewables obligation planned for Northern Ireland.
	In the meantime, it would be premature, to say the least, to move forward with this amendment when we have not yet carried out a detailed analysis of the effect of such a move on consumers. It is very important that we take the time needed to consider its effects in the round, not merely implement the measure with a limited grasp of the full effects.
	Should the amendment come into force at the same time as the rest of the Bill, it would affect the obligation period for 2003–04 for which any payments into the buy-out fund are due on 1 October this year. Suppliers may choose to make their payments before that date. If the amendment were to come into force around late September, that would leave open the distinct possibility of some suppliers deciding to comply early under the existing system and others complying under the new system. To put it at its mildest, that would be a confused and highly undesirable situation.
	Furthermore, the amendment would have serious consequences for powers that have previously been executively devolved to Scotland. Fully to achieve the purpose of the amendment of having a single buy-out fund will probably mean the introduction of a single Great Britain-wide obligation, rather than the two obligations we have at present. Taking powers back to Westminster that have already been executively devolved is no light or casual matter.
	Therefore, although I feel obliged to resist the amendment, I want to emphasise that we are giving the most careful consideration to this issue in the review of the renewables obligation. It would be possible to take measures that would meet the purpose behind the amendment using secondary legislation and without the need to pull back powers which we have already devolved to Scotland. With a firm undertaking that the issue will be considered fully in the review, and in view of our real awareness of the seriousness of the position, as the noble Baroness indicated in moving her amendment, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, of course none of us wants cheating in the system, but it is very nice to hear the noble Lord defend the interests of Scotland in so far as matters have been devolved hitherto. There could be a distortion in the system if a measure such as that proposed by my noble friend—I know that she has done so in very good faith—was introduced at the wrong moment. Therefore, personally I very much welcome the noble Lord's reply and I am grateful to him.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that evidence has been given about this manipulation and that it is a very serious matter which needs to be considered. I shall make only one or two comments. I said very clearly that this proposal could be implemented without any detriment to consumers. That is what the organisation that briefed me strongly on the need for the amendment made very clear. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we must look into what its effect would be on consumers on the basis that nothing has been done until now.
	I heard what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said on this issue and I understand her views clearly. However, the fact remains that at present the system is simply not working. In fact, it is continuing to distort the market and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
	I believe I heard the Minister say that somehow or other this matter can be dealt with by secondary legislation. I wonder how a certain matter can be devolved and then, in a sense, corrected by secondary legislation. Unless I did not hear the noble Lord correctly, it seemed to me that that was the gist of his comments. I want to make it clear that at this stage I have no intention of dividing the House. As the Minister said, the Government take this matter seriously, but I simply want an assurance that they will make an effort to see that it is dealt with in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 18:
	After Clause 122, insert the following new clause—
	"COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 32 TO 32C OF THE 1989 ACT
	(1) In section 25 of the 1989 Act (orders for securing compliance), in subsection (8), in the definition of "relevant requirement" for "32C" substitute "32D".
	(2) In sections 32A(4) and 32A(7) of that Act (orders under section 32: supplementary), (which relate to information powers and other functions of GEMA), at end insert "or to any obligation arising under section 32D".
	(3) After section 32C of the 1989 Act, insert—
	"32D Prevention and remedying of default in compliance with sections 32 to 32C
	(1) An order under section 32 may provide that an electricity supplier must pay such a sum to the Authority, corresponding to the supply of a given amount of electricity by the supplier in a particular period, as may be—
	(a) necessary to make good in aggregate so much of any unrecovered default in the payments referred to in section 32C(1) (payment as alternative to complying with order under section 32) by other suppliers in previous periods as may be determined by or under the order; and
	(b) determined by the Authority and published at least so long before the start of that period as may be specified in the order;
	(2) Any sums received under subsection (1) shall be paid by the Authority to electricity suppliers in accordance with a system of allocation specified in the order.
	(3) The system of allocation specified in the order may provide for payments to specified categories of electricity supplier only.
	(4) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be proportionate to do so, and that competition in the supply of electricity would not in consequence be unduly distorted, the order may also make provision as to the form and extent of any measures which a supplier is to take for the purpose of securing its discharge of the renewables obligation.
	(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), such provision may—
	(a) apply only to so much of the obligation as may be determined by or under the order;
	(b) include a requirement on electricity suppliers to deposit from time to time with the Authority sums of money, certificates issued under section 32B (green certificates), or other financial security; and
	(c) authorise the payment of interest by the Authority on any sums so deposited.
	(6) The order may provide that any figures necessary to make or provide for the derivation of any calculation under this section can be estimated by the Authority or the Secretary of State.
	(7) This section is without prejudice to the enforcement powers available to the Authority in relation to any provision of section 32 (obligation in connection with electricity from renewable sources) to 32D that is a relevant requirement within the meaning of section 25(8).""

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I feel like saying, "Here we go again", because I raised this issue in Grand Committee and at the Report stage. On Report, the Minister brought forward amendments relating to the handling of late payments and allowing for shorter obligation periods. However, those would have only the most marginal impact in dealing with the central problem of what happens when a supplier becomes bankrupt. Noble Lords may remember that when I discussed this matter in Grand Committee and on Report I called it "securitisation" on the first occasion and then argued the case equally for "mutualisation", hoping that somewhere along the line a solution could be found.
	However, I think it is right to say that, in the absence of further action on this problem, we estimate that the failure of a company of the size of, for example, TXU could, by 2015, lead to a default 10 times bigger than that which arose last year from TXU's bankruptcy.
	Such a risk is bad not only for the growth of renewable energy; it is also extremely bad for customers. They are paying extra for their electricity in order to secure the development of renewable energy, but a significant part of those payments is not flowing to renewable generators, simply because of the default risk.
	We put forward on Report an amendment, which was designed to resolve that by giving the Government powers to implement either or both of the only two effective ways to deal with the problem. The first was for any uncovered cost to be recovered from consumers as an adjustment to future renewable charges. The second was for the amount of outstanding debt to be reduced through staged payments or by the provision of security.
	Either route would involve some cost for consumers, and it is not clear at this stage which of the two would be cheaper. A combination may very well be the best answer. However, both would clearly be a more efficient use of consumers' money in support of renewables than the current system.
	The Minister made a number of technical criticisms of our drafting on Report. We have accordingly taken note. We have simplified the amendment and made it more flexible. We have added safeguards to prevent undue distortion of competition. Discussions have been held within the industry in the light of the revised drafting. I am pleased to tell the House, and indeed the Minister, that the consensus that this amendment is the right way forward has been considerably strengthened since the issue was discussed.
	On Report, I invited the Government to come back with their own proposals. I think I was a little ruder; I used language like, "Get on with it", which was not terribly parliamentary. I am trying to be more parliamentary at this stage. It did not prove possible, perhaps as a result of the time pressures. But inaction is simply not an option on this matter. It would be absurd to maintain a system with sums of this magnitude owing between commercial entities without any credit management.
	The amendment does not commit the Government to specific action but it gives them the powers they need to take the matter forward. Tonight really is our last hope. I invite the Government either to accept our amendment, which is a serious and thought-through policy to resolve this serious problem, or to undertake to take the matter away, perfect the drafting if they think they can and bring it back in another place. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has presented these issues both on Report and again today with considerable insight and tenacity. Of course I share with her the concern which lies behind the amendment. I hope that the powers in Clause 117 of the Bill demonstrate our determination and commitment to take measures to address the issue. I shall attempt before I have completed what I think will be a fairly lengthy reply in the face of these real difficulties, to give a positive response by the Government on how we propose to tackle the measure.
	I am not sure that it is possible to prevent suppliers defaulting in their payments to the renewables buy-out fund as we cannot prevent companies failing, although clearly we should take all reasonable steps to reduce that likelihood. But all forms of protection for the buy-out fund involve additional costs and we have to consider carefully the balance of costs and benefits. While the measures set out in the amendment would no doubt provide some additional security for the buy-out fund, and in doing so may increase confidence in the market, it would do so—and I emphasised this the last time we debated the issue—at a high cost. There may be additional unforeseen consequences.
	I recognise the hard work that has been done by the Opposition, and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her attempts to produce amendments which tackle this very difficult issue. I want to emphasise that although I shall ask her to withdraw the amendment this evening, we are at one with her about the need to tackle the problem. We are trying to strike the right balance on how the problem can be most effectively tackled.
	The amendment essentially covers two options: first, what is termed mutualisation, which is aimed at recovering a shortfall after it has occurred; and, secondly, securitisation, which involves taking steps to prevent such a shortfall occurring. In that context, it may be worth spelling out what we mean by shortfall or deficit in that context. Deficits are in fact lower amounts than expected being paid to holders of ROCs, rather than actual deficits in the usual sense of the word.
	Let me address mutualisation first. The first provision in the proposed order requires that electricity suppliers must, in effect, make good previous shortfalls by paying an additional sum over and above their share of the renewables obligation. I am glad that the provision provides for sufficient flexibility so that any such additional sums can cover part or all of the shortfall, as I think that we are all agreed that the default of a very small supplier should not trigger mutualisation. That would mean taking a sledgehammer to crack what is really a small nut. That may also serve to limit the impact of the provision, but it will still mean extra costs. From where is the additional money meant to come? I fear that the only credible answer is that it will have to come from consumers—who are in no way to blame for the shortfall. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that it is right that consumers should foot the bill for such costs?
	We have always made it clear—including in the energy White Paper—that our renewables targets are subject to the costs being acceptable to the consumer. To require consumers ultimately to fund deficits in the buy-out fund subjects them to an ever-increasing liability for costs. We should not depend on consumers to bear the cost of such shortfalls.
	There must also be some doubts as to whether the amendment would achieve its basic aim of providing a greater level of confidence in the renewables market. There are two possible difficulties. First, the amendment may actually increase uncertainty. Following the failure of a supplier, other suppliers will not know the extent of the additional payment that they will have to make, but they will have that threat hanging over them. That level of uncertainty, together with the prospect of additional costs may, far from increasing confidence for investors, have the diametrically opposite effect.
	Secondly, we need to look at the slightly longer term here. When a shortfall occurs, the requirement to make up all or part of the lower than expected fund will inevitably place further pressure on other suppliers. There must be a risk of a further shortfall the following year—the noble Baroness expressed anxieties on that score—consequential to the initial shortfall, and, as a result, greater demands for payments. In fact, we might have a domino effect, and we could be worse off than ever.
	In practical terms, that provision of the amendment also involves at least one clear practical problem for Ofgem in determining the amount necessary to make good any shortfall. It is not clear on what basis Ofgem would do that. What would be the extent of any shortfall? There seems to be no legal remit to do that. We should also bear in mind that adding such levels of complexity will inevitably increase the administration costs for all parties.
	Under the amendment, an order could also require electricity suppliers to take other measures to secure the buy-out fund where the Secretary of State is satisfied that that will not unduly distort competition—that is the securitisation element. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, acknowledged the implication for competition between suppliers making regular payments on account to cover their share of the renewables obligation. As I understand the provision, that is an attempt to secure some or all of each supplier's share of the obligation in advance. Again, that would certainly provide security but at a high cost.
	The proposal increases the upfront costs on electricity suppliers, and there must therefore be a strong risk that those extra costs will fall on consumers. In some respects, that is a greater risk than under the previous provision because with this proposal the additional costs apply whether or not there is a shortfall.
	Unlike mutualisation, the Secretary of State cannot wait until a failure occurs before introducing securitisation. It can therefore be likened to an expensive insurance policy—with all insurance policies the cost will depend on the party seeking the cover, with larger, well-established companies tending to have to pay proportionately less. But, as I have just said, I welcome the fact that the amendment recognises and seeks to address the competition implications, which are considerable. How easy that would prove in practical terms—in other words, whether such a scheme can be devised that does not bear more heavily on smaller suppliers and does not act as a barrier to entry into the market—is another question.
	I also have concerns about how such advance payments will be calculated, and how the suitability of other forms of financial security, such as letters of credit, will be assessed. That seems to be a potential minefield with ample scope for disputes and challenges. Although the intention, as I understand it, is that the amendment in effect offers the possibility of mutualisation and/or securitisation to protect the buy-out fund, the wording is wide, referring to an order to make provision for any measures on the part of the supplier where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is proportionate, and that competition will not be unduly distorted. Although the Government appreciate that concept of flexibility, the wording would give a very wide power, with consequent difficulties for Ofgem in assessing whether or not suppliers had made the necessary provision. The regulator cannot be made responsible for ensuring that shortfalls are avoided, which is an impossible task in a market-driven mechanism such as the renewables obligation.
	I shall summarise why the Government resist the amendment. First, there are the potential additional costs, which are likely ultimately to fall to consumers; secondly, because there is some risk that such measures could make matters worse, although I accept that the noble Baroness's intention is to improve things; and, finally, because of the practical difficulties in implementation, in particular for Ofgem. In indicating in this protracted reply why we cannot accept the amendment, I emphasise that the Government are neither complacent nor pretending that a further shortfall could never happen. We are concerned that we could be taking powers that make matters worse rather than better whether or not a shortfall occurs. It must be open to question whether the additional costs, in financial terms and impediments to market entry, are justified.
	The Government are concerned to provide some additional measures to help secure the renewables buy-out fund. There is a trade-off between achieving a very high level of security while keeping costs to consumers at a reasonable level. For that reason we are examining closely the option of reducing the compliance periods thereby reducing exposure by other suppliers if a supplier were to go into administration. There are added administrative costs for both suppliers and Ofgem in the proposal, but we consider that it is preferable overall to the level of regulation proposed in the amendment. It also strikes a better balance between effectiveness and costs.
	We intend to consult this summer, with a view to taking forward the necessary secondary legislation next year. We have already agreed the primary powers for this measure; they are in Clause 117, which, I think the noble Baroness will recognise, is a base on which the issue can be tackled. But we need to get it right. If we produce a remedy that does not measure accurately the costs and benefits, we could end up in a situation even worse than the problem that we propose to tackle. The noble Baroness has assiduously devoted many hours in approaching the matter. She has twice tabled amendments of great importance, which, although I have felt obliged to reject, have prompted us to think very seriously about the issue and how we should respond to it.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister warned us at the beginning that his was going to be a long answer. Indeed, it was long, but it did not say anything that we wanted to hear. He need not have bothered. It was an appalling answer, because the Minister did not take note of many of the things that I said. There was no point in talking at length about how securitisation might work, or how mutualisation might work, or being flexible. I have argued those, both in Committee at great length and on Report at great length, and I know the pluses and minuses. We did not need to hear all of that.
	The last time that we spoke, the Minister said that this would be taken away, and that they were consulting. They have been consulting; they have been consulting; they have been consulting. They cannot even get around to saying that they would be prepared to put something down at some stage during the course of the life of this Bill, when it reaches the other place. He did not take note, he said that it was an enormous cost to consumers—I mentioned that. I said that either route would involve some cost, but that it was not clear to us which route would be the cheaper, and a combination of both might be the answer. Whatever it would be, it would clearly be a more efficient use of consumers' money in support of renewables than the current system, which is absolutely appalling.
	This new amendment could be called the middle way—which I would have thought suited the Minister's party. One might have thought that this might be an approach that could be helpful. It so happens that lots of discussions have been held with industry in the light of revised drafting, and the consensus on the amendment, so far as industry is concerned, is that this is the right way to move forward.
	I am well aware that the Government have had a strong whip, and they have said that Members must stay until half past ten. I am going to give the Minister some relief that people will not feel that they stayed for nothing. They will at least have a chance to walk through the Division Lobbies. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 68.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Ezra: Amendment No. 19:
	After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
	"RENEWABLE TRANSPORT FUEL OBLIGATION
	(1) In order to comply with EU Directive 2003/30/EC, which requires Member States of the European Union to demonstrate how biofuels are to be placed on their markets in increasing quantities, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation.
	(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may—
	(a) require relevant parts of the road transport fuel industry to demonstrate that a specified proportion of their product is renewable,
	(b) set targets for the proportion of road transport fuel to be renewable, and
	(c) provide for penalties for failure to meet targets.
	(3) For the purposes of the obligation, renewable transport fuels shall be defined as liquid or gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass or other renewable fuels.
	(4) The power conferred by this section on the Secretary of State to make regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	(5) In this section—
	"biomass" means the biodegradeable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetable and animal substances) forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradeable fraction of industrial and municipal waste;
	"other renewable fuels" means fuels, other than biofuels, which originate from renewable energy sources and are used for transport purposes."

Lord Ezra: My Lords, this amendment deals with the renewable fuel transport obligation. Like the previous matter, this subject was discussed in Committee and on Report. On both occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, expressed sympathy with the intent of the amendments, but he thought that they were too precisely drawn. Full account has been taken of his remarks in drawing up the present amendment, which begins by referring to the EU directive and then leaves it open to the Secretary of State to make such regulations as may be required in relation to that directive. I do not think that anything could be more broadly drawn than that.
	I hope, therefore, in the light of the real effort that has been made and the discussions which I know have taken place since the Report stage, that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. It should be borne in mind that when the Bill goes to another place, if for any reason a further amendment is made, obviously that would be possible. If necessary, we would be able to consider it again when the Bill comes back to us. On that basis, and speaking briefly given the hour, I beg to move.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has given a most succinct introduction to this, our third attempt at trying to persuade Her Majesty's Government to have a renewable transport fuel obligation. As the noble Lord said, an enormous amount of work has gone into the rewording of this amendment since we originally tabled it with all-party support in Grand Committee, where it even seemed to receive tacit support from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. As always, I must declare an interest as the unpaid president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils.
	It is terribly difficult to find anything new to say on this amendment as the arguments were so well supported in Grand Committee and from all parts of the House at Report stage.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, emphasised the point that if this amendment was accepted we would be talking about a minute percentage of our total fuel requirements, and I think that this is indeed an important factor. Although the amounts of biofuels potentially available may be relatively small, they could nevertheless be significant—5 per cent is certainly achievable; and 10 per cent is a realistic target over time.
	For a brief moment I would like to reiterate some of the salient points behind our thinking on this amendment. This amendment could make a major step forward in achieving our national aims for cutting CO2 emissions. It would improve local air quality. It would boost the productivity of our depressed farming sector at an affordable cost. It would give the United Kingdom a degree of self-sufficiency. Surely this must be welcome in the current political unrest in the Middle East. It would make certain that we try not to lag too far behind our European partners, who are currently way in advance of us in terms of technology, usage and of course most importantly, enjoy a much more relaxed tax regime.
	I have seldom been involved in a Bill where one particular amendment has such overwhelming support throughout the land, not least of all from another place. The Daily Telegraph recently ran a headline:
	"Whitehall warms to 'fuel from crops' initiative".
	Only last week, there was a major editorial in Crops Magazine, and I quote:
	"The energy time bomb is ticking as predictions for depleting fossil fuel reserves in the North Sea and elsewhere suggest. Government has a real chance to provide the UK with sustainable energy alternatives".
	Every countryside body supports this amendment; every farming body supports it; every environmental body supports it, and not surprisingly, all the farming press support it. I really hope that the Government, this time, will embrace this with open arms as it really will be of enormous benefit to our nation.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment because I have been involved in Grand Committee and at Report stage. As the Minister knows, we have been trying extremely hard to find an amendment that the Government will find acceptable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I declare an interest as the unpaid vice-chairman of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils.
	In this amendment we have tried to meet the points that have been made by the Minister. We have included the other renewable fuels and biodiesel. We know that the Government are consulting and when that consultation is over they will have to produce their proposals to meet the directive, which has been mentioned. This amendment provides them with a way of doing that.
	I have two quotations. When we discussed this matter at Report stage the Minister said:
	"I am open to discussing any alternative amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, or anyone else, brings forward. But anything which appears to drive the Government to one conclusion on this matter would be somewhat difficult. With that qualification, I shall be happy to talk to anybody".—[Official Report, 29/3/04; cols. 1094–95.]
	We drafted the amendment expressly so that the Government are not drawn to any one conclusion. I also have a letter from Mr John Healey, the Treasury Minister, to Mr Peter Clery, the chairman of BABFO, which states that,
	"the Government remains committed to promoting biofuels, and we are not opposed in principle to some form of biofuels obligation for road transport as this may well offer an effective way of promoting further use of biofuels in the UK. Although we must weigh up the merits of such an approach against other possible options, it could be one of a number of options to help the UK meet the targets we need to set under the Biofuels Directive".
	We have drafted the amendment exactly to meet the points made in that letter.
	There is one point that has not been raised before and which we believe is important. When the Government reach the end of the consultation and decide to introduce a policy on renewable and transport fuels, how will they do so unless a provision of this nature is somewhere in legislation? I am not clear that they will be able to do so even if they wanted to. I agree that if the Government accept the amendment, it could mean substantial redrafting in the Commons. It is important that there is a provision in the Bill so that if the Government wish to introduce the policy, they have the power to do so. It would be helpful if my noble friend could tell the House, should he decide not to accept the amendment, how the Government would be able to introduce such a policy.
	This is the first House to consider the Bill. There will be every opportunity in the House of Commons for the Government to amend and improve this approach if they wish. The amendment is entirely permissive; it does not tie the Government's hands. I hate to say it, but it leaves the Government with the option not to do anything if that is what they choose to do. We, of course, shall be lobbying hard for biofuels as an alternative to be accepted, but the amendment does not tie the Government's hands; it merely provides a means, through legislation, for the Government to act if they wish to do so.
	I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept the amendment as drafted. Then, if the Government wish to amend the drafting or whatever in the House of Commons, they will be free to do so.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly and follow the good example of others who have spoken before me in so doing. I declare an interest, as I have in earlier debates, as a non-executive director of Associated British Foods, which owns British Sugar.
	But it is because of the wider considerations that I support the amendment. I wish to draw attention to the point made very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about its impact on agriculture and the farming community. Indeed, the Minister has been extremely sympathetic all the way through in his response to the general approach. It has been generally agreed on all sides for some considerable time now that one of the ways forward for the farming community is diversification, alternative land use and alternative use of crops. It seems to me that this classically falls into this category.
	Given the fact that the sugar regime is due to be amended from 2006 onwards, the possibilities for oilseed rape, for sugar beet, in particular, and for other cereals give farmers considerable cause for hope. I speak as one who comes from a part of the country which has a very strong cereal and sugar beet growing industry. That is one reason why I support the amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a very good point about the legislative opportunities for introducing this subject if it is not done here. If it requires legislation—as I suspect it will—as a small item it is the kind of thing that will get dropped out and not be brought forward as part of a government Bill unless there is another wider opportunity to include it. Here is this wider opportunity. I hope that it will be taken.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendment. I hope that on this occasion the Government will be able to accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, if they cannot accept the wording of the amendment, perhaps they will accept the thrust behind it and come back with something in another place.
	I do not have to declare an interest with regard to BABFO but we do grow sugar beet on the farm in Suffolk.
	Looking back on our debates, I should be grateful if the Minister, if he is able, would respond today to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, at Report stage. The noble Lord said that the Minister had commented that,
	"it is difficult to tax or apply obligations to overseas-owned companies"—
	and asked—
	"Does he accept that in the electricity renewables obligation we do just that with the French, German and American-owned companies operating in this country?".—[Official Report, 29/3/04; col. 1094.]
	I would be glad if the Minister could respond to the noble Lord's question because I have not yet seen a reply.
	Other noble Lords have covered the issue in great depth and I shall not delay the House. The Minister has indicated his sympathy all the way through. I believe the trouble has been with the purse strings in the Treasury. We may get a fuller explanation today. I hope that we will hear something positive as this is the last stage at which we in this House can do anything about it.
	I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords, who have worked so thoroughly behind the scenes between the various stages. The workings of the House are very important because not everything happens on the Floor of the House; a great deal of pressure is exerted and discussions go on behind the scenes between the various stages.
	In supporting the amendment I hope that, if the Government cannot accept it, they will make a strong commitment to the House to look at the issue again before the Bill completes all its stages in another place.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I think the House knows—certainly those participating in this debate know it—I have been a strong supporter of biofuels making a contribution to our climate change programme through transport and also as an outlet for the agricultural sector. The biofuels directive, which we very much welcome, gives us the opportunity to look afresh at mechanisms whereby we can deliver a higher proportion of our fuels through biofuels, preferably biofuels which are produced from crops of various sorts grown in this country.
	Clearly there is an obligation on us to consult on how we will deliver the biofuels directive. The Department for Transport will be issuing a consultation document on that very shortly. One mechanism that it will propose as an option will undoubtedly be the imposition of a renewables obligation of the sort outlined in the amendment. There will also be other options, but the renewable fuels obligation would be part of that approach and one of the major options to be put before the consultees.
	I am gratified that the amendment before us tonight is not the prescriptive amendment that it was at earlier stages, but is more permissive. There are a number of problems about the amendment as it stands. For example, how would it operate in practice? To whom would the obligation apply? What fuels would be covered? How should the scheme be policed and administered? How would companies demonstrate compliance? What would the information requirements be? Would there be buy-outs and trading? The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a point about international companies. How would the obligation operate in such a way as to minimise the obligation being fulfilled simply by imported biofuels or other renewables? That is the point at which, in this context, the international ownership of the oil companies presents a potential problem.
	Some of these issues can be dealt with by secondary legislation, but some of them probably ought to be resolved, at least in principle, on the face of the Bill. The current wording would therefore require significant amendment.
	I am also mindful of the point made by my noble friend Lord Carter. If, at the end of the consultation, there is solid support for a movement towards an obligation, where are the powers for us to impose such an obligation? If we do not begin to talk about it now, we might have to invent some other vehicle for this.
	While it would be true to say that the exact form of the obligation will require some considerable work and probably some more detailed attention at a later stage, in the circumstances, given the widespread support for such an obligation and the timing of the consultation, and on the understanding that what comes out of the Commons may be substantially different from the amendment as drafted, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, everybody will be delighted at what the noble Lord has just said. It will fill all of us with great pleasure, not only those directly involved in the farming community but those involved in energy and energy efficiency who have fought so hard to transform the energy scene. This is an important step forward—it has really made the day for many of us. Other attempts at getting amendments accepted have not been so successful. I thank the Minister as well as the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Palmer and Lord MacGregor, for the part they have played in this. I wish this amendment well when it wends its way through the other place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ezra: moved Amendment No. 20:
	After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
	:TITLE3:"CHAPTER 5
	:TITLE3:CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
	PROGRAMME FOR CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a programme for clean coal technology that introduces demonstration plants for the development of clean coal technology.
	(2) Such an order may also set out additional programmes that will facilitate the application of clean coal technology both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
	(3) Before making such an order, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of clean coal technology on—
	(a) protecting the global environment,
	(b) responding to the foresight initiative,
	(c) exploiting market potential,
	(d) ensuring the security of United Kingdom energy supply, and
	(e) maintaining a presence for the United Kingdom in a global energy market.
	(4) In this section "clean coal technology" means specified technologies for the generation of electricity from coal that meet specified pollutant emission performance criteria."

Lord Ezra: My Lords, this is another amendment that has been through Committee and Report. I have returned to it because of my long association with the coal industry. It relates to clean coal technology. I moved a similar amendment in an attempt to persuade the Government to introduce some form of obligation to stimulate the development of cleaner coal technology. However, it was rejected. Therefore, this amendment, like the previous one, is much more permissive. It follows the lines of what was said to about clean coal technology in the energy White Paper, which indicated that the Government were minded to have a programme for clean coal technology that would lead to the introduction of demonstrator plants.
	That is precisely what the amendment proposes. It follows the lines of the White Paper. It is therefore not a new development. It would give great encouragement to the coal industry, which is worried about its future. It would enable us to do a great deal of additional export business through having demonstrator plants showing how this technology could work, as the Energy White Paper indicated. Therefore, I very much hope that, in this revised form, the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I accept that there is an important role for cleaner coal technology, I am afraid that I cannot be quite as helpful on this amendment in its precise form as I was on the previous one. That is principally because, although we are involved in trying to draw up a carbon abatement technology programme for fossil fuel-based power generation—which we are doing in collaboration with the industries and which will build on existing DTI support for cleaner coal technologies—and cleaner coal technologies will play an important part in reducing carbon emissions and maintaining a source of power that minimises those emissions, the amendment relates to the demonstration of cleaner coal technologies and the case for the Government to support a demonstration plant.
	Experience around the world, particularly in the United States, suggests that cleaner coal technology demonstrators do not fulfil their objective of moving the technologies into the marketplace. Therefore, in a value-for-money sense, a legal obligation to engage in such a demonstration plant is not a useful option. The Government therefore acknowledge the importance of cleaner coal technology, but the intention that would arise from the amendment is not the most effective way forward. We would rather engage with the industry over the next few months and, indeed, with the noble Lord and others who are interested in this matter to see how cleaner coal and carbon abatement technologies should develop. I am sure that my colleague Mr Stephen Timms at the DTI, the Minister with executive responsibility in this area, would be happy to meet the noble Lord and others to see whether they could take the matter further. However, I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I find that extremely disappointing. In fact, it seems to go back on what the Government wrote in the energy White Paper, in which they said:
	"With this in mind, we have already put in place a programme of support for advanced traditional cleaner coal technologies which is intended to bring forward demonstrator projects that may help to showcase the relevant technology more widely".
	That is in cold print in paragraph 6.64 in the energy White Paper.
	It seems to me that that is very far away from what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just told us. Is he therefore saying that the Government are going back on the intention so clearly stated in the Energy White Paper? If so, it is an extremely sad day for coal. It is, I would suggest, an extremely sad day for the Labour Party, which traditionally has had the closest possible historic connection with the coal industry. I should have thought that it would have been the first party to have grasped at any way in which the future of coal can be provided for.
	I am really disturbed by what the Minister said. He said that he would be open to further discussion, with himself and with Mr Timms. I would certainly like to take that up. However, I want to emphasise that what he has just told us is at extreme variance with what is written in the Energy White Paper. I do not wish to say any more about the matter and, at this late hour, I certainly do not want to divide the House on it, although I would have done so if we had discussed it earlier. I shall take up the Minister's offer of talks. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 151 [Applications for energy administration orders]:
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
	Clause 153 [Energy administrators]:

Lord Lea of Crondall: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 117, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) salaries, other contractual terms of employees, and their occupational pension provision, including rights conferred under Schedule 14 to the 1989 Act (the electricity supply pension scheme);"

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am moving the amendment now because it was not possible for any of the noble Lords who put their name to it to be present to move it at Report stage.
	Schedule 14 to the Electricity Act 1989 empowered the Secretary of State to make regulations, which would protect employees then in the industry from detriment in respect of their pension provision. These were enacted as the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990. Similar protection was provided for employees in Scotland under Schedule 15 to the Act and the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Scotland) Pension Regulations 1990. The regulations impose a duty on the relevant employer to maintain or provide its protected employees and protected beneficiaries—together called protected persons—with pension rights, both on an ongoing basis and, in particular, in the event of the partial or total winding up of the scheme; the restructuring or change of ownership of the participating employers; or the transfer of employees from one employer to another within the electricity industry.
	This clause appears to lay a duty on the administrator to prioritise the interests of creditors and, subject to them, the interests of members of the company. Through the amendment we are seeking confirmation that the arrangements for a special administration regime do not, and are not intended to, override the statutory duties on employers of protected persons under the Electricity Act 1989. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I am able to give such confirmation and confirm that, in the event of a special energy administration, the duties in this respect of employers of protected persons under the Electricity Act 1989 and the protected persons regulations will not be overridden by the duties of the energy administrator. The fact of the company being in administration, whether ordinary or energy administration, will not in any sense terminate the company's duties in this respect. In both cases, the trustees of the pension fund, if the fund is owed money by the company, will be treated as an unsecured creditor of the company.
	The provisions of this clause follow the precedent of existing insolvency law, adapting it only where necessary for the purpose of energy administration. Therefore, the rights of employees and pension rights are unaltered as compared with any other administration situation. I hope that that goes far enough for my noble friend to accept it as the reassurance that he sought.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am glad to have the confirmation on the record from my noble friend the Minister that that is the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 167 [Appeals to the Competition Commission]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 126, line 27, leave out "whose interests are materially affected by it" and insert "who is a party to the document designated pursuant to subsection 2(b)"

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Clause 167 currently provides that persons who are "materially affected" by a decision of the energy regulator will be entitled to appeal against that decision.
	In Grand Committee, and on Report, we argued that the concept of material effect should be changed to the wider concept of sufficient interest. This was not because we wish to enable additional parties to be able to appeal against Ofgem's decisions. It was because we were concerned that, on the test of material effect, there was no guarantee in law that all parties to an industry code would be equally entitled to appeal in relation to an Ofgem decision. We agree with the Government's policy, which is set out in the Bill's Explanatory Notes, that those persons who are able to appeal should include the parties to the relevant codes. However, what is unclear is whether, as a matter of law, all code parties would, in fact, qualify as appellants under the "materially affected" test.
	The Minister objected to what he called the "dilution" implicit in our proposed change of test. He feared that this would open the floodgates to appeals from persons whose relationship to a particular code might be indirect or purely tangential. This concern seems exaggerated to us, given that an indirect interest or a tangential interest is by no means the same as a sufficient interest.
	In any event, there is an easy way to resolve this matter. That is to ensure, by express drafting, that the parties to the industry codes—in other words, the market participants who are on the receiving end of Ofgem's decisions—are a distinct category of persons who unambiguously have appeal rights, separately from the test applied to other persons. These two amendments achieve this. They provide beyond any doubt that all parties to the industry codes have a right of appeal, while also bringing in as materially affected persons Energywatch and other representative bodies who are not formally parties to the codes.
	These amendments should resolve many of the concerns that we have had about the Bill's approach to the test of the right to appeal, while not putting Ofgem's decisions at risk of appeal by persons who have no substantial relationship to the industry codes. On that basis, I find it hard to conceive of any good reason why the Government would not welcome these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, while we have made a number of amendments in relation to the appeals procedure, we clearly have not swayed the noble Lord's position on this one. I hope that that is not because of some misunderstanding. I accept that he has adapted his amendment in an attempt to address our concern about the use of a sufficient interest test but nevertheless he is persisting in the view that we have too narrow a basis for parties to appeal.
	The Government's view is that parties to the code in question will be able to appeal but only provided that they meet the "materially affected" test in particular circumstances. Not all parties to the code will meet that test in every instance and bodies such as Energywatch may be materially affected in certain respects and, although not party to the code, would therefore also be able to appeal certain decisions on the same basis.
	The noble Lord's amendment would seem to lead to a situation where all parties to the codes would be able to appeal every decision. The Government cannot accept that outcome. We cannot accept that any legal persons who do not fall under a "materially affected" definition should be allowed to appeal the decision even if they might be party to the code, or if they are not. There are elements within the industry who believe that such a broad basis of appeal should be allowed, but the Government's view—I think that it will be supported by the majority in the industry—is that this would be disproportionate and contrary to the policy of having a fairly tightly prescribed right of appeal.
	In our view, therefore, "materially affected" is the right hurdle. This is an important element of the balanced package that is designed to address the concern of the majority of respondents to last year's consultation and provide a degree of certainty and avoidance of delay, whereas the possibility of having a much broader-based threshold of appeal could lead to a flood of appeals which would grind down the whole of the process to no great benefit of the majority of companies involved in the industry. I therefore believe that there is a conflict here, but I am not convinced by the noble Lord's arguments and cannot accept the amendment. I hope that he will not persist with it.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, at this late hour it is rather difficult for me to persist with it. The only way in which I could take my persistence one stage further would be to seek to divide the House tonight; and at a quarter to eleven in the evening I should like to assure the Minister that I have no intention whatever of doing that.
	However, as the Minister rightly surmised, I am disappointed in his reply, especially since I believe that it conflicts with the statement set out in the Bill's Explanatory Notes. We have made substantial moves over the three stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House to try to meet the concerns expressed by the Government about our original suggestion of the sufficient interest test. I shall not accuse the noble Lord of churlishness in this matter. However, I think that the noble Lord's approach to our latest amendments is rather harsh.
	I hope that, during the gap between the termination of the stages in your Lordships' House and the commencement of the stages in another place, the Minister and his colleagues will think again about this matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
	Clause 178 [Assistance for areas with high distribution costs]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 135, line 43, leave out "negative" and insert "affirmative"

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this amendment is succinct, and the case for making it is also succinct.
	On Report, the House agreed to amend Clause 179 to make it subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 179 enables government to introduce a scheme to subsidise high transmission costs for renewable generation sources in remote areas. The case for this power to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the weaker negative procedure, was that Clause 179 dealt with more than a narrowly technical matter. On the contrary, Clause 179 is a major departure from normal regulatory practice since it contemplates a new and potentially untransparent subsidy to further the ends of what would otherwise be uneconomic renewable development. Rightly, therefore, this House thought the exercise of such a power should be subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny higher than that which is available under the negative procedure.
	Clause 178 is broadly analogous to Clause 179 in its cross-subsidising effect, as it aims to offset the adverse consequences in Scotland of the abolition of the hydro-benefit subsidy. To that end, under the clause the Government will be able to raise a quasi-taxing levy on the general body of electricity consumers. On that basis, I am sure that the House will recognise that the same arguments that justified the subjection of Clause 179 to the affirmative resolution procedure apply with equal, if not greater, force to Clause 178.
	In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister can accept this simple amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am going to disappoint the noble Baroness in everything except being as brief and, I hope, precise as she was in moving the amendment. We of course recognise that the application of the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate in certain circumstances, but we do not think it right under the clause. The Delegated Powers Committee did not raise any issues on the use of the negative resolution procedure with respect to the scheme.
	The noble Baroness helpfully referred to the amendment made to Clause 179, but we also have appropriate precedents and parallels. The negative resolution is provided for under Section 72 of the Utilities Act, which amends the Electricity Act 1989. That enables the Secretary of State to lay an order that, for example, requires the holder of a supply licence to charge uniform prices in a specified area of Scotland. In that respect, there are very clear parallels between Section 72 of the Utilities Act and Clause 178 of the Bill, which seeks to protect customers in the north of Scotland.
	We think the negative procedure appropriate. I hope that, in consideration of that parallel, the noble Baroness thinks that the Government are right in this instance.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin wrote in the Times on 14 April about the unwillingness of the Government to accept perfectly sensible amendments to the Bill. This is such a case. Clearly, I shall not do anything about it at this late stage, but I hope that my colleagues in the other place have a better response than we have just had. After all, the procedure applies to Clause 179, and Clause 178 is broadly similar. In fact, its provisions go even further and ought to be subject to affirmative resolution; there is no case for negative resolution to be used at all. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 26:
	After Clause 179, insert the following new clause—
	"RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
	In section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27) (general restrictions on disclosure of information)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(a) for "or Part I of the 1989 Act" substitute ", Part 1 of the 1989 Act or section 178(5) or 179(5) of the Energy Act 2004"; and
	(b) in subsection (3)(a) after "1989 Act" insert ", section 178 or 179 of the Energy Act 2004"."

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the House will recall that we agreed to consider a very similar amendment on the subject after it was put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Hendon and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I should say that I am sorry that he has not been here today to enjoy the final jousting sessions on the Bill. We are grateful to them for raising the issue, and I hope that I have addressed their concerns with a slightly different drafting approach.
	The amendment simply provides for the protection of information provided under the hydro-benefit replacement scheme and the adjustment of transmission charges for the renewable generators scheme through the application of Section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000. The addition of the proposed new clause will make it an offence to disclose information provided under the respective schemes, except in those circumstances specified under that section.
	Several circumstances would allow for disclosure of information under Section 105 of the Utilities Act; for example, disclosure made with the consent of the individual who is, for the time being, carrying on the business, or disclosure for the purposes of facilitating the performance of any of the functions of the Secretary of State, the authority or the Competition Commission under the 1986 Act, the 1989 Act or the Utilities Act 2000. But in other respects we believe that it meets the substantive objections that were made to the original drafting. Therefore, I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister said, throughout the discussions on the Bill noble Lords on this side of the House argued strongly for confidentiality and I am pleased to welcome the government amendment, which was tabled in response to our amendment at Report. We thank the Minister for that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 183 [Applications of general duties to Part 4 functions etc.]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 142, line 10, leave out from "under" to "as" in line 11 and insert "Chapters 2 to 4 of Part 4 of this Act"

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. Both amendments are technical. Amendment No. 27 relates to functions conferred by the Secretary of State or GEMA under Chapters 2 to 4. The amendment makes it clear that these functions will be subject to the principal objectives and general duties set out in the Gas Act 1986. Amendment No. 28 relates to powers in the Bill conferred on the Secretary of State to amend the licence conditions. Clause 184 makes various provisions about those powers, but, as it stands, it is incomplete. Amendment No. 28 corrects that omission and maintains consistency. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 184 [Supplementary provision about licence condition powers]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 142, line 33, leave out from "under" to "with" in line 34 and insert "Chapters 2 to 4 of Part 4 of this Act"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 188, insert the following new clause—
	"RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTALLATIONS: DECOMMISSIONING
	(1) Where a consent is given under section 36 of the 1989 Act for the construction of a renewable energy installation in—
	(a) tidal waters and parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea; and
	(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone.
	The Secretary of State shall, before that consent is brought into force, publish a schedule for the decommissioning of that installation.
	(2) Whenever a renewable energy installation, as defined in subsection (1) ceases to be operable for any reason the Secretary of State shall activate the decommissioning schedule unless he considers there are particular reasons not to do so."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise in advance to noble Lords, because I wish to return to this important amendment, for which I have waited patiently all afternoon and evening.
	The passage of the Bill has been, for me, one disturbing revelation after another. According to a Written Answer on 30 January this year by Mr Timms, demand rose by 2.7 per cent per annum in the 20 years from 1982 to 2002. UK supply capacity from conventional sources—coal, oil, our own natural gas, nuclear and hydro—is falling and that will continue for the next 10 or more years. According to my noble friend Lord Gray on 7 January, the 32 per cent of our current supply that comes from coal will be eliminated by 2016 if emission constraints are enforced. He went on to say that by 2020 only one nuclear power station will be operational—and nuclear currently provides 23 per cent of our requirements.
	By 2020, at historical expansion rates, demand will have grown from 344 trillion watt hours in 2002 to some 511 trillion watt hours and we shall have lost nearly 50 per cent of our current generating capacity. I have been brought to realise, as have other noble Lords, that if that situation of falling supply and growing demand continues, Ofgem is tasked with holding consumer prices or lowering them even further. Surely that is interfering with market forces and bodes ill for the commissioning of fresh sources of supply. To make matters worse there was a clear indication from the Minister, when challenged by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith on 29 March (at col. 1140 of the Official Report) that under present rules climate change levy will be charged to all established sources of supply, including wind farms.
	Recent press comments and on the radio, to say nothing of the TV programme, "If . . . the lights go out", have all highlighted Britain's growing dependence on imported fuels, especially coal and gas from Eastern Europe. There has also been informed comment about the intervention by China in the world commodity markets, particularly in coal, iron ore, steel and gas. It is felt that it has already hardened prices and is likely to force them up even further.
	But the Government, as we have debated the Bill, will not come off the fence with regard to nuclear production. Until they do, there will be no expansion of it. While no direction is given on the subject, planning even to replace the supplier we are losing is almost impossible.
	All this adds up to a desperate, frightening and dangerous scenario. Can the Minister say what powers the Secretary of State can command without having to introduce fresh primary legislation and without having to declare a state of emergency to reduce demand over a period should our supply be jeopardised? Should the gap between the anticipated maximum supply and demand fall to, say, 5 per cent, can he order the population to turn lights off or reduce the domestic use? I am thinking of something similar to the hose-pipe ban brought on in the time of drought.
	I think that the Government have to decide whether and how to ensure that wind power will be used as a primary source of supply. One of my fears is that the views in many of our beautiful high areas—miles from off-shore wind—views will be changed by the addition of thousands of wind turbines. My other great fear is that the levels of monitoring and control over that wind farm development are not adequate. Perhaps in some instances greed might triumph over conservation, which leaves groups such as the RSPB, Greenpeace, the WWF and others to highlight the liberties being taken. In such circumstances, I believe that there would be a public backlash against the use of methods which involve heavy engineering in harnessing wind, water and wave power—something we do not want to see.
	Radio 4 has run a series entitled "Costing the Earth". On 8 April, the subject was coastal erosion. I understand that the programme reported that we export more than 1 million tonnes of marine aggregate each year to the continental coastal countries which have banned extraction of their aggregates in their own coastal waters because of the effect that is having on coastal erosion. The reason given for the use of our marine rather than land aggregates is, I understand, that it is cheaper and easier to extract from the seabed and because the level of monitoring and control is so much lower at sea. If that is not true, I should be grateful for the Minister to confirm that. It is being suggested and if it is true it is a worrying scenario.
	Decommissioning is but one aspect of the off-shore wind turbine business, but the Government refuse to ensure that a would-be developer produces a decommissioning commitment in the form of an approved timetable plan before—and I stress the word "before"—he is granted planning permission. The Government make great play of the current friendly arrangements with those who own or run oil platforms around our shores. However, those companies have been in business for a considerable length of time and have large resources of their own.
	In contrast, I understand that much of the finance for developers of wind farms will be from venture capital and the resultant companies will be liable to financial instability. It is possible that they could be. The Bill does not specify the sanctions that will apply to those who fail to implement a satisfactory decommissioning scheme in the event that it is necessary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, wrote to me on 6 April and I am grateful to him. The letter was helpful, but it raised additional concerns which I have raised tonight. In the letter, he said that the relevant consents will contain a condition stipulating that the object in question may not be installed in the sea until such time as a decommissioning programme has been agreed with the Secretary of State. But what is to stop the developer simply getting on with doing it? He has obtained his planning consent, his turbine and his necessary wires and connector and there is a business to go ahead. What is there to constrain him?
	The letter also raises an issue discussed in our debate on 23 March at cols. 638–39; that is, the existence of a choice of legislation under which a developer can seek the various approvals that he needs. The implication is that he can get round the less pleasant aspects of this Bill by using another one. I am aware that the Government, faced with amendments voted for in this House, sometimes fail to bring them into force and simply continue to use old legislation as empowerment for statutory instruments.
	I feel that the picture that I am painting and, indeed, the response to the noble Lord's letter have highlighted a serious threat. The RSPB particularly raised this issue with me. It says that everything laid down in the Bill leaves both the Secretary of State and the developer with considerable leeway about how open they are about proposals for the decommissioning of installations. I know that the Government are seeking a more flexible process, but what kind of environmental factors and scientific considerations do they envisage could make it undesirable to remove structures from the marine environment once they have reached the end of their operating life?
	We spoke about this issue at length during Grand Committee and Report. However, at this stage, I do not believe that the Government have allayed my fears, and that is why I have reintroduced the matter tonight. I apologise for having taken a little while in going through it, but this is the last chance for me to do so in this House before the Bill goes to another place.
	I shall be content if the noble Lord acknowledges that I have raised issues that the Government may like to consider further, and I do not intend to divide the House. The noble Lord's letter to me clearly states that the Government have it in mind to ensure that the laid-down regulation will be in place. However, that will be after consent has been given and I do not understand why consent should not be given before the plans are put forward for consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave a rather sweeping introduction to the amendment. At one point, I was slightly concerned that she was not speaking to the amendment with which I thought we were dealing. Nevertheless, we have reached the point where I can now relate to the earlier discussion and the correspondence.
	My first point is that the noble Baroness's amendment deals with one pattern of consent, whereas our scheme, which is set out in Clauses 107 to 116, gives more comprehensive coverage, dealing not only with the Electricity Act but also with the Transport and Works Act.
	Secondly, I shall more or less repeat the words of the letter. In relation to any relevant consent for the renewable energy installation or any related electric line, the object cannot be put in the water until such time as the decommissioning programme has been approved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the consent is subject to the provision of a decommissioning programme to the Secretary of State. There is no point in looking in detail at decommissioning before the project is consented because that effort will be wasted if the consent is not given. However, the scheme under Clauses 107 to 116 will apply as soon as the project is consented; in other words, the requirement to provide a decommissioning programme will apply prior to that consent being implemented by putting the installation in the water.
	Therefore, I do not believe that the spectre that the noble Baroness foresees of people going ahead with building all kinds of horrific things at sea which are not accompanied by a viable decommissioning programme really arises. The amendment as it stands envisages that the Secretary of State must publish a decommissioning programme. As I said, the Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to require the submission of a decommissioning programme, although that is discretionary. While we expect her to make full use of those powers as a matter of routine, the flexibility is also helpful. But in any case, it is primarily for the person with the consent to produce the decommissioning programme to be submitted to the Secretary of State for her approval. The person responsible for the installation will provide the decommissioning programme, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. So, there are all sorts of problems with the approach suggested by the noble Baroness.
	There is a misunderstanding that the consent could be implemented without the decommissioning requirement and also that the amendment would apply to all forms of consent. The amendment is more restrictive than our provision, which includes the safeguards that the noble Baroness seeks. I am quite happy to engage in further discussions. I do not think that her amendment does the job she seeks. The Bill as it stands does it better.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and have been throughout. Obviously, he realises that we have genuine concerns and that there is a need to protect the environment. The reason I spread my nets very wide to start with was that the running down of nuclear and the Government's desire to push quickly the growth of wind farms will have huge implications for marine life. We talked about that in earlier amendments, so I shall not go over the ground again. If our demand were going to reduce, then the seriousness of it would not be so great. However, because there will be increasing pressures on this type of energy source in the future, I thought that it was important to spread the net wider.
	I do not know much about business, but it seems to me to be an odd way to go about matters for one to get consent and then to come back and justify how one is going to decommission something at the end of the day. But I accept what the noble Lord has said. I also accept if one is not successful in one's bid that one has wasted time. Perhaps I can draw a parallel, which the noble Lord will know well. On the agricultural schemes, which he and I deal with on a regular basis, that is one of the risks one runs. One does a lot of work in trying to put in one's application, knowing full well that one may not actually get it granted anyway. I think the noble Lord knows why I have come that way.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that we can discuss the matter further. The one thing that has come out of the Bill, and which has been highlighted in the amendments today, is the need to have regard also to the marine environment. My noble friend raised the whole question of fishing and of navigation, but certainly the protection of marine environment and our wildlife, which is so dependent on circumstances for future growth, is important. At this stage, I think I will have to say that it is over to my colleagues in another place when the Bill gets down there. I thank the Minister for his response and certainly will come back to him on the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 [The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 151, line 2, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—

"Constitution of NDA for initial period

4 (1) Until the end of the initial period the NDA is to consist of just those members who have been appointed.
	(2) As soon as practicable after his own appointment takes effect, the chairman must exercise the power to appoint a chief executive.
	(3) Appointments of members other than the chairman and chief executive may be made during the initial period only after the appointment of the chief executive has taken effect.
	(4) During the initial period the requirements of paragraph 9(1)—
	(a) do not apply to a decision to which the chairman is a party if it is made when the chairman is the only non-executive member; but
	(b) are not to be capable of being satisfied in relation to a decision made at any other time unless at least two non-executive members are parties to the decision.
	(5) The chairman must ensure that proper records are kept of everything he does, while he is the only non-executive member, in the exercise or performance of powers or duties conferred or imposed on the non-executive members.
	(6) In this paragraph "the initial period" means the period which begins with the commencement of so much of this Act as provides for the establishment of the NDA and ends with whichever of the following first occurs—
	(a) the time when an appointment takes effect that brings the number of members of the NDA up to seven;
	(b) the time specified as the end of the initial period in a notice given during that period by the Secretary of State to the NDA for the purposes of this paragraph."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Procedural requirements applicable to NDA's Strategy]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 157, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) In this paragraph references to a designated installation, designated site or designated facility include references to an installation, site or facility designated by a direction which is not yet in force."

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. The Bill provides that the NDA is required to consult local authorities and other bodies in respect of designated sites, installations and other facilities. The amendments provide that the NDA is under a similar obligation where the designation in question is not yet in force. That is because the NDA will not take formal responsibility until 1 April 2005. However, it is important that it is required to consult those bodies once it has identified the sites and facilities and prior to the formal designation. The issue is fairly straightforward. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Procedural requirements applicable to NDA's annual plans]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 160, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) In this paragraph references, in relation to the preparation or revision of a plan, to a designated installation, designated site or designated facility include references to an installation, site or facility designated by a direction which—
	(a) is not yet in force; but
	(b) is to come into force during the year to which the plan relates."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Pensions]:

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 184, line 43, after "securities" insert "of"

Lord Triesman: My Lords, a large number of amendments and possibly the shortest speech is a gratifying combination. This group of amendments makes very minor drafting clarifications to Schedules 8 and 9. I can assure noble Lords that they do not in any way affect the purpose of those schedules. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Triesman: moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
	Page 185, line 25, after "employer" insert "or if his employer becomes the subsidiary of a particular body corporate"
	Page 186, line 10, leave out "the"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 186, line 25, leave out "the trustee of the scheme" and insert—
	"(a) the trustee of the scheme; and
	(b) such persons as appear to the NDA to represent the employees, or directors or other officers, likely to be affected by the modification."

Lord Triesman: My Lords, these amendments respond to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Brooke on Report. They extend the statutory right of employee consultation, first, to modifications of a relevant pension scheme—in practice, the BNFL group scheme—in Schedule 8(2), and, secondly, modifications of the NDA pension scheme. In practice, many of those modifications would have fallen within the original employee consultation requirements in the Bill. That is because the Bill as originally drafted already included statutory rights of employee consultation prior to transfer schemes or arrangements, where such schemes or arrangements require employees to leave their current pension schemes.
	We anticipate that many of the modifications, certainly in relation to the NDA pension scheme, will be connected to such schemes or arrangements. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to ensuring that employees and their representatives will be consulted before anything is done to their pension schemes. That was the import of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Brooke. Extending the statutory right of consultation in that way therefore reinforces the undertakings given at earlier stages. I beg to move.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we are extremely grateful that this important amendment has been agreed. In the absence of the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Brooke, I wish to say that we are very pleased that people have been given this appropriate response.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 49:
	Page 190, line 27, leave out "will apply" and insert "applies"
	Page 190, line 30, leave out "will have" and insert "has"
	Page 190, line 33, leave out "will satisfy" and insert "satisfies"
	Page 190, line 35, leave out "will be" and insert "is"
	Page 190, line 37, leave out "will be applying" and insert "applies"
	Page 190, line 39, leave out "will be" and insert "is"
	Page 191, line 19, leave out "at" and insert "immediately before"
	Page 191, line 37, leave out "are" and insert "will be"
	Page 191, line 40, leave out "who is"
	Page 193, line 13, leave out "are" and insert "will be"
	Page 193, line 15, leave out from "Before" to "entitled" in line 16 and insert "such transfer arrangements take effect, the NDA must satisfy itself that every person"
	Page 194, line 42, leave out from "consult" to end of line 44 and insert—
	"(a) the NDA; and
	(b) such persons as appear to him to represent the employees likely to be affected by the modification.
	( ) Before making a modification under this paragraph the NDA must—
	(a) consult such persons as appear to it to represent the employees likely to be affected by the modification; and
	(b) obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the modification." Page 195, line 3, leave out from "A" to "may" in line 5 and insert "UKAEA pension scheme"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 9 [Taxation provisions relating to nuclear transfer schemes]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 204, line 6, leave out "1988" and insert "Taxes"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [Applications and proposals for notices under section 95]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 231, line 2, after "the" insert "safety zone"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 20 [Conduct of energy administration]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 246, line 41, after "proposed" insert "remedy,"

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53. They remedy two very minor drafting errors in Schedule 22. The schedule provides for Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to have effect in relation to energy administration, amended to allow for the circumstances of energy administration. To be legally exact, I beg to move this last amendment of the evening.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 247, line 4, leave out "making" and insert "the making of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.
	House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.